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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/380,353 filed on 16 October 2023. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young (KR-20150047274-A).
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]).
Regarding Claim 2, Young discloses the negative active material in claim 1, 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 discloses the negative active material as claimed in claim 1, 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 6, Young discloses the negative active material as claimed in claim 1, 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 discloses the negative active material as claimed in claim 1, 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 discloses the negative active material as claimed in claim 1, 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 discloses 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 [0032]).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (KR-20150047274-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Young discloses the negative active material as claimed in claim 1, 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 discloses the negative active material as claimed in claim 1, 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]).
Conclusion
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