Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-2, 5 and 21 as over Jung et al. (US 2019/0260019) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0227746), made of record in the office action mailed on 11/6/2025, page 2, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed on 02/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2019/0260019) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0227746) and He et al. (CN 111834634).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, Jung discloses negative electrode active material which may dramatically improve stability of a battery while not degrading battery performance such as cycle characteristics, and a negative electrode and a lithium secondary battery which include the same, wherein the negative electrode active material includes negative electrode active material particles which include artificial graphite in the form of a secondary particle (abstract). The secondary particle of the artificial graphite has an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of 10 μm to 30 μm (claim 7).
However, Jung fails to disclose that surface roughness of the artificial graphite material A is in a range of 6-12 and a specific surface area is 1.5-4 m2/g and fails to disclose that artificial graphite material has a tap density of 0.8-1.4.
Whereas, Wang discloses an Artificial lump graphite B to be used in the present invention is in the form of lump particles (para 0037). Artificial lump graphite B has a 50% particle diameter D.sub.50(B) of preferably not more than 35 μm, more preferably 0.5 μm to 35 μm (para 0039). Artificial lump graphite B has a surface roughness R of preferably 6.0 to 9.0, more preferably 6.5 to 8.5, and further preferably 6.8 to 8.2. The surface roughness R within the range can result in an increased square measure in contact with an electrolytic solution, smooth intercalation and deintercalation of lithium, and lowered reaction resistance of the battery (para 0041-0042). Artificial lump graphite B has a BET specific surface area of preferably 1.5 to 10.0 m.sup.2/g, further preferably 2.0 to 5.0 m.sup.2/g and most preferably 2.5 to 4.0 m.sup.2/g (para 0040).
Whereas, He discloses high-performance artificial graphite anode material has particle size distribution D10 of 6-12 micrometer, D50 is 16-24 micrometer, D90 is 28-35 microns, true density is ≥ 2.24g/cm3, tap density is ≥ 0.9 g/cm3, graphitization degree is ≥ 90% (English Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form secondary particle of the artificial graphite of Jung having a surface roughness in a range of 6.5-8.5 and BET specific area of 1.5-10 m2/g as taught by Wang motivated by the desire to have increased square measure in contact with an electrolytic solution, smooth intercalation and deintercalation of lithium, and lowered reaction resistance of the battery (para 0042) and to form battery with good initial coulombic efficiency and good input-output characteristics and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form artificial graphite material of Jung with tap density of ≥ 0.9 g/cm3 motivated by the desire to have good rate characteristics of the battery and improved processability.
Regarding claim 21, The only deficiency of Wang is that Wang disclose the use of surface roughness of 9, while the present claims require surface roughness of 10.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of surface roughness and that taught by Wang are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of surface roughness disclosed by Wang and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of surface roughness, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of surface roughness disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Wang, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Jung fails to disclose that artificial graphite material has a true density of greater than equal to 2.2 g/cc and a graphitization degree is greater than 92%.
Whereas, He discloses high-performance artificial graphite anode material has particle size distribution D10 of 6-12 micrometer, D50 is 16-24 micrometer, D90 is 28-35 microns, true density is ≥ 2.24g/cm3, tap density is ≥ 0.9 g/cm3, graphitization degree is ≥ 90% (English Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form artificial graphite material of Jung with true density of ≥ 2.24g/cm3, graphitization degree of ≥ 90% as taught by He motivated by the desire to have good rate characteristics of the battery and improved processability.
Regarding claim 8, As Jung in view of Wang and He discloses artificial graphite having surface roughness, D50, surface area, tap density, true density and graphitization degree as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that artificial graphite would intrinsically have gram capacity of greater than 340 mAh/g.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2019/0260019) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0227746) and He et al. (CN 111834634) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2020/0091519).
Regarding claim 8, Jung fails to disclose that the artificial graphite material has a gram capacity of greater than 340 mAh/g.
Whereas, Zhou discloses artificial graphite (negative electrode active material) having a gram capacity of 343 mAh/g (para 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form artificial graphite material of Jung having a gram capacity of 343 mAh/g as taught by Zhou motivated by the desire to form battery with high capacity so it can hold more energy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/06/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claimed artificial graphite material A comprises secondary particles, which are formed via granulation of primary particles using a binder. However, Wang discloses only primary particles with solid-core morphology derived from pulverization and graphitization of coke. Wang provides no teaching or suggestion as to granulation, binder-assisted aggregation, or composite secondary particle structure. The interpretation by the Office that the surface roughness of lump particles of Wang could teach the surface roughness of secondary particles is not supported by the disclosure of Wang and contrary to the common understanding in the field, as further explained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Declaration.
However, it should be noted that Wang is not relied to teach the graphite material comprises secondary particles, Jung is used as a primary reference to teach the negative electrode active material includes negative electrode active material particles which include artificial graphite in the form of a secondary particle (abstract).
However, Wang is only used as teaching reference in order to teach to form artificial graphite comprising particles having a surface roughness in a range of 6.5-8.5 and BET specific area of 1.5-10 m2/g. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Applicant argues that He provides no teaching or suggestion as to granulation, binder-assisted aggregation, or composite secondary particle structure. In other words, He is silent as to graphite in the form of secondary particles, as expressly required by the claim 1. As explained in In re Papesch, a compound and its properties are inseparable, and properties of one material form cannot be assumed to apply to a different form.
However, He is only used as teaching reference in order to teach to form artificial graphite having tap density of ≥ 0.9 g/cm3. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Applicant argues that even assuming arguendo that He's graphite were considered related, the reference provides no reasonable expectation that graphite secondary particles would exhibit the claimed tap density, as required under In re Dillon. ("It is not enough that the prior art suggests the chemical structure; there must be a reasonable expectation that the compound would exhibit the claimed characteristics.")
Furthermore, the specification describes "the increased binding force between graphite and the binder and the increased acting force between the particles of graphite helps implement a high energy density." (Specification, paragraph [0054].) The forces between the particles are reflected in the "tapped density" of graphite. It shows the interactions between composite secondary particle structure and surface roughness defined in claim 1 brings about unpredicted result that has never been contemplated by any of the cited references.
“obviousness under 103 is not negated because the motivation to arrive at the claimed invention as disclosed by the prior art does not agree with appellant’s motivation”, In re Dillon, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Tomlinson, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966).
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached on 5712721490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788