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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 15 May 2026 have been considered. It is acknowledged that claim 1 was amended by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (KR-20150047274-A) in view of Lee et al. (US-20210202931-A1), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding Claim 1, Young discloses a negative active material (negative electrode active material; see [0001]), comprising: a core including a carbon material (“a core including flake graphite particles”; see [0009]; and “The above core may further comprise low-crystalline carbon”; see [0010]); and a metal carbide (The above ceramic may be… TiC; see [0017]) on a surface of the core (a ceramic coating layer positioned on the surface of the core; see [0009]), wherein the metal of the metal carbide is Ti, Mo, Fe, Nb, Ta, W, or V (The above ceramic may be TiC; see [0017]), and wherein the carbon material is included in the negative active material in an amount of 80 wt% to about 99.5 wt% (Flaky graphite particles (average particle diameter (D50): 54 탆), nano silicon (average particle diameter (D50): 30 nm), which is a metal-based active material, and petroleum pitch, which is a low crystalline carbon precursor, were mixed in a weight ratio of 60:10:30… and classified to produce a carbon-metal aggregate composite containing low-crystallinity carbon; see [0111] and “Subsequently, a carbon-metal assembly composite and TiO<sub>2</sub>ceramic (average particle size (D50): 30 nm) were mixed in a weight ratio of 100:2, and then mechanically mixed at 2000 rpm for 20 minutes in a high-speed stirrer to prepare a ceramic-coated carbon-metal assembly composite active material”; see [0112]). This preparation example provided by Young results in a negative active material that is about 88 wt% carbon material, assuming that the entire petroleum pitch remains as carbon after the heat treatment.
While the above calculation of 88 wt% carbon material cannot be taken as a rigorous and completely accurate calculation due to the fact that some mass loss would ordinarily occur during carbonization, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the amount of carbon material in the process disclosed by Young would have been over 80%, even if mass loss was taken into account. Accordingly, Young does not explicitly teach the claimed proportions. However, Lee discloses wherein the carbon material is included in the negative active material in an amount of 80 wt% to about 99.5 wt% (Also, the negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to one example of the present invention may comprise, more specifically, 9 parts by weight to 12 parts by weight of the first carbon-based particle, 81 parts by weight to 86 parts by weight of the second carbon based particle, and 5 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight of the silicon-based particle; see [0022]).
Young and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative active materials for batteries. Modifying Young by incorporating this teaching of Lee would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Lee offers the motivation of optimization of charge and discharge properties, cycle properties, swelling properties, adhesion forces, and lifespan properties (see [0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, Young and Lee together disclose the negative active material in claim 1. Young further disclsoes wherein the metal carbide is represented by Chemical Formula 1: MxCy, in Chemical Formula 1,
1
≤
x
≤
2
a
n
d
1
≤
y
≤
3
, and M is Ti, Mo, Fe, Nb, Ta, W, or V (The above ceramic may be TiC; see [0017]).
Regarding Claim 3, Young and Lee together disclose the negative active material as claimed in claim 1. Young further discloses wherein the metal carbide is TiC, Mo2C, Fe2C, NbC, TaC, WC, VC, or a combination thereof (The above ceramic may be TiC; see [0017]).
Regarding Claim 4, Young and Lee together disclose the negative active material as claimed in claim 1. Young further discloses wherein the metal carbide is included in the negative active material in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt%, based on a total weight of the negative active material (The content of the above ceramic may be 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon-metal composite; see [0056]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed range of weight percent because MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such a weight percent because it would enable a uniform coating layer (see [0056]).
Regarding Claim 5, Young and Lee together disclose the negative active material as claimed in claim 1. Young further discloses wherein the metal carbide is included in the negative active material in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 10 wt%, based on a total weight of the negative active material (The content of the above ceramic may be 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon-metal composite; see [0056]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed range of weight percent because MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such a weight percent because it would enable a uniform coating layer (see [0056]).
Regarding Claim 6, Young and Lee together disclose the negative active material as claimed in claim 1. Young further discloses wherein the core is included in the negative active material in an amount of about 80 wt% to about 99.5 wt%, based on a total weight of the negative active material (the carbon-metal assembly composite and ceramic were mixed at a weight ratio of 100:2; see [0112]).
Regarding Claim 7, Young and Lee together disclose the negative active material as claimed in claim 1. Young further discloses wherein the carbon material is crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or a combination thereof (The above core may further comprise low-crystalline carbon; see [0010]).
Regarding Claim 8, Young and Lee together disclose the negative active material as claimed in claim 1. Young further discloses wherein the carbon material is crystalline carbon (The above core may further comprise low-crystalline carbon; see [0010]).
Regarding Claims 9-13, these are considered product-by-process claims. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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 if the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 14, Young and Lee together disclose a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a negative electrode including the negative active material as claimed in claim 1; a positive electrode; and an electrolyte (a lithium secondary battery is provided, comprising: a negative electrode including the negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to the above-described embodiment of the present invention; a positive electrode; and an electrolyte; see Young [0032]).
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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights