DETAILED ACTION
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 11-14, in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-10 and 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the English letter “t” and the Greek letter “τ” are used interchangeably throughout the written description. Applicant is advised to pick one or the other and use it consistently to ensure that the reader understands that Applicant is referring to a single variable rather than two different variables.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it presents a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Particularly, it is unclear how the claimed “impact factor” is calculated. Applicant has failed to provide adequate guidance or examples for performing the calculation used to determine the individual “impact factors” (“σ”) as well as how the total “impact factor” (“τ”) is calculated. Applicant does not provide any basis for the mass percentages, i.e. total mass of the element modifier, total mass of the coating layer, etc., nor the basis for the coefficients used in the provided examples. Furthermore, it is unclear what the numerical subscripts represent. One having ordinary skill in the art would therefore be forced to conduct undue experimentation in order to determine what a given “impact factor” would be for a given modifying group.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11-14, it is unclear how to calculate the claimed “impact factor” as detailed in the rejection of claims 1-4 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), above.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 113735107 A), hereinafter “Wang.”
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a graphite negative electrode material comprising:
graphite, in this case the modified graphite negative electrode material (e.g., p. 2-3); and
a carbon coating layer present on at least a part of the surface of the graphite, in this case the coating includes a carbonized modifying agent (p. 3);
wherein the carbon coating layer includes an element modifying group including M, where M is selected from B, N, and P, in this case the modifying agent contains boron and/or phosphorus (p. 3).
Wang is silent as to the impact factor. However, Wang does teach that the mass ratio of the coating precursor to the modifying agent containing boron and/or phosphorus is 100:3-5 (p. 3) and the mass ratio of the graphite to the coating is 100:1-30 (p. 3-4). This loading would have resulted in an impact factor that overlaps with the claimed 0.5 to 10 range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that this conventional loading would have yielded the advantages of f high tap density, low powder alignment, high discharge capacity, high first efficiency, cycle performance, and excellent multiplying power performance (p. 3), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the impact factor to correspond to 0.5 < τ < 10 in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 2, Wang further discloses that the graphite is spherical graphite (p. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further discloses that σB, σP, and σN are not simultaneously 0, in this case the modifying agent may contain both boron and phosphorus (p. 3) which in turn results in non-zero values for σB and σP.
Regarding claim 4, Wang further discloses that the carbon coating layer is derived from asphalt (p. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses a negative electrode material comprising graphite that is at least partially coated with a carbon coating and a modifying additive as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Furthermore, the following are product-by-process limitations:
“wherein the graphite negative electrode material is prepared by the following preparation method of a graphite negative electrode material-aeerding-te-ki-r5, comprising steps of:
performing a thermal polymerization treatment on a mixture containing graphite, a coating agent, and a modifying additive, to obtain a precursor, wherein a mass ratio of the coating agent to the modifying additive is (1~99):1, the modifying additive comprises an element M-containing compound, and the M is at least one selected from the group consisting of B, N, and P; and
performing a carbonization treatment on the precursor under a protective atmosphere, to obtain the graphite negative electrode material.”
Applicant is reminded that “"even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted); M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here, Wang teaches the negative electrode material as set forth in the rejection of claims, above. Therefore, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Wang further discloses that σB, σP, and σN are not simultaneously 0, in this case the modifying agent may contain both boron and phosphorus (p. 3) which in turn results in non-zero values for σB and σP.
Regarding claim 13, Wang further discloses that the carbon coating layer is derived from asphalt (p. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Wang further discloses that the carbon coating layer is derived from asphalt (p. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights