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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 6-7 that Kim would not teach a pellet density of an electrode active material due to teaching natural graphite as a coating layer. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Kim teaches a pellet density of 1.9 to 2.5 g/cm3 for natural graphite [0036] and teaches that the natural graphite is used as an anode (negative) active material layer [0078]. Kim further teaches that the optional coating material is amorphous carbon [0078-0079]. Therefore, Kim would teach pellet density of a graphite active material and render the claims obvious in combination with Yamada and Hwang.
The arguments are presented on page 7 that pellet density is a property of a starting material. These arguments are not found persuasive since pellet density is not an intrinsic material property and would only be a property of the material after it is pressed into a pellet.
The arguments are presented on page 7 that Yamada, Kim, and Hwang would not teach the ratio of specific surface areas taught by amended claims 1 and 10. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Yamada teaches a preferred range for the claimed surface area (2 m2/g to 4 m2/g) [0118] which would fall within and obviate the claimed ranges for surface area ratios when selected (since the maximum range of ratios would be 0.5 to 2) and further teaches that several types of graphite are effective including artificial and natural graphite [0311]. Therefore, when combined with the teachings of Hwang that teaches using different types of graphite together [Hwang 0033, 0040-0043], modified Yamada would render the amended claim limitations obvious.
The arguments are presented on page 7 that Yamada, Kim, or Hwang would not teach the claimed benefits including lithium intercalation/deintercalation. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Yamada teaches specific surface areas that would fall within the claimed ratios (2 m2/g to 4 m2/g) provide benefits of secured entry and exit of Li ions and inhibition of side reactions [0118]. Therefore, these effects would not be unexpected based on the teachings of Yamada. Furthermore, these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims since the independent claims are drawn to a carbon material composition and are not drawn to battery electrode material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US 2022/0013779 A1, hereafter Yamada) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0265665 A1 hereafter Kim), and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2022/0045327 A1, hereafter Hwang).
With regard to claims 1-2, 4, 16, and 18, Yamada teaches a carbon material composition comprising a carbon material (A) (graphite) [0016],
wherein the carbon material (A) contains graphite containing an amorphous carbonaceous material or a graphite material [0016];
has a pellet density of 0.8 g/cm3 or less (which falls within the claimed range) [0306]; and
has two or more peaks in pore size distribution measured by mercury porosimetry [0046].
Yamada does not explicitly teach the claimed formula, however Yamada teaches controlling pore size distribution and cumulative pore volume by altering the amorphous carbon amount [0046-0047], which would obviate the claimed values of claims 1, 2, and 4.
Yamada teaches the claimed surface area (0.5 m2/g to 10 m2/g which overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges for A and B materials) [0027] and teaches a preferred range for the claimed surface area (2 m2/g to 4 m2/g) [0118] which would fall within and obviate the claimed ranges for surface area ratios when selected (since the maximum range of ratios would be 0.5 to 2, claim 1 and claim 18) and teaches that several types of graphite are effective including artificial and natural graphite [0311], but does not explicitly teach a second carbon material (B). However, in the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches the use of a second graphite (including artificial graphite having a high hardness) material having a different particle diameter than a first graphite material and teaches that the material is not coated by amorphous carbon (conductive agents are optional and may be metals, claim 16) [0015, 0020, 0027, 0033, 0077]. Based on the teachings of Hwang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use differing graphite materials (A and B materials) and as first and second graphite materials of modified Yamada for the benefit of controlling the density ratio between the pellet and tap densities to allow for a high density electrode and prevent cracks [Hwang 0033, 0040-0043]. Yamada does not explicitly teach a material with a pellet density of 1.80 g/cm3 or more. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the use of natural graphite with a pellet density of 1.90 g/cm3 to 2.50 g/cm3 (which falls within and anticipates the claimed range) [0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pellet density of Kim with one of the carbon materials of modified Yamada for the benefit of good battery capacity and lithium ion intercalation and deintercalation [Kim 0036-0037].
With regard to claim 3, Yamada teaches a pore size (diameter) of 360 nm or less (which would fall within and anticipate the claimed range) at the top of a peak with the smallest pore size [0047].
With regard to claim 5, Yamada teaches a tap density of 1.15 g/cm3 or more [0120].
With regard to claim 6, Yamada teaches a specific surface area of 4.0 m2/g or less (which would overlap and obviate the claimed range) [0118].
With regard to claim 7, Yamada teaches that several types of graphite are effective [0311], but does not explicitly teach spheroidized graphite. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the use of natural graphite [0036] and teaches the natural graphite may be formed into spherical particles (spheroidized) [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the spherical graphite of Kim with the carbon material of Yamada for the benefit of good battery capacity and lithium ion intercalation and deintercalation [Kim 0036-0037].
With regard to claims 9 and 13, modified Yamada would teach two types of graphite as detailed in the rejections of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach the claimed mass percentages. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches the use of 20% to 40% by weight (which overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges) of a second graphite material having a different particle diameter than a first graphite material [0020, 0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the weight percentage and differing particle diameters of Hwang with the first and second graphite materials of modified Yamada for the benefit of controlling the density ratio between the pellet and tap densities to allow for a high density electrode and prevent cracks [Hwang 0033, 0040-0043].
With regard to claims 10 and 17, Yamada teaches method for producing a carbon material composition comprising a carbon material (A) (graphite) and teaches mixing different carbon materials [0016, 0128],
wherein the carbon material (A) contains graphite containing an amorphous carbonaceous material or a graphite material [0016];
has a pellet density of 0.8 g/cm3 or less (which falls within the claimed range) [0306]; and
has two or more peaks in pore size distribution measured by mercury porosimetry [0046]
Yamada does not explicitly teach the claimed formula, however Yamada teaches controlling pore size distribution and cumulative pore volume by altering the amorphous carbon amount [0046-0047], which would obviate the claimed values.
Yamada teaches the claimed surface area (0.5 m2/g to 10 m2/g which overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges for A and B materials) [0027] and teaches that several types of graphite are effective [0311], but does not explicitly teach mixing a second carbon material (B). However, in the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches the use of a second graphite (including artificial graphite having a high hardness) material having a different particle diameter than a first graphite material and teaches that the material is not coated by amorphous carbon (conductive agents are optional and may be metals, claim 17) [0015, 0020, 0027, 0033, 0077]. Based on the teachings of Hwang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use differing graphite materials (A and B materials) and as first and second graphite materials of modified Yamada for the benefit of controlling the density ratio between the pellet and tap densities to allow for a high density electrode and prevent cracks [Hwang 0033, 0040-0043]. Modified Yamada does not explicitly teach a material with a pellet density of 1.80 g/cm3 or more. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the use of natural graphite with a pellet density of 1.90 g/cm3 to 2.50 g/cm3 (which falls within and anticipates the claimed range) [0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pellet density of Kim with one of the carbon materials of modified Yamada for the benefit of good battery capacity and lithium ion intercalation and deintercalation [Kim 0036-0037].
With regard to claim 11, modified Yamada teaches a negative electrode comprising a current collector and an active material layer [0030] according to claim 1 on the current collector (as taught by Yamada and Kim as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 12, modified Yamada teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode [0032] wherein the negative electrode is the negative electrode according to claim 11 (as taught by Yamada and Kim as detailed in the rejections of claims 1 and 11 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724