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 .
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn in the application
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention 2, claims 8-12, in the reply filed on 06 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no serious search burden for the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because a serious search burden can be established if the claimed inventions have separate classifications, showing that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search (MPEP 808.02). As stated in the previous office action mailed 23 June 2026, invention I, drawn to a negative electrode active material, is classified in H01M 4/583, and invention II, drawn to a method of producing a negative electrode active material, is classified in H01M 4/8882. Therefore, an undue burden would be placed on the examiner to search for both independent inventions, and the restriction is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the legal phraseology “comprises” is recited in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the (a) includes spheroidizing the secondary particle” which should be corrected to “wherein (a) includes spheroidizing the secondary particle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-12 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.
The term “low-crystalline carbon” in claim 8, line 5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-crystalline carbon” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation “performing heat treatment on the secondary particle to change the precursor into low-crystalline carbon” is rendered vague and indefinite.
Claims 9-12 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eguchi (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2004/063321). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2004063321-A.
Regarding claim 8, Eguchi teaches a method of producing a negative electrode active material including (a) forming a secondary particle (composite graphite particle) by mixing primary particles (flake-shaped highly crystalline natural graphite particles, [0084]), a precursor (coal tar pitch, [0085], which is the mesophase precursor, [0086]), and carbon black (Ketjen black, [0085]). The primary particles are graphite (flake-shaped highly crystalline natural graphite particles, [0084]). Next, Eguchi teaches (b) performing heat treatment on the secondary particle to change the precursor into low-crystalline carbon ([0086], the secondary particle is heated at 470 °C for 20 hours to form the mesophase carbonaceous layer, which is a low-crystallized surface, [0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Eguchi further teaches (a) includes spheroidizing the secondary particle ([0084], the natural graphite particles are granulated, forming dense, spherical to ellipsoidal graphite granules).
Regarding claim 10, Eguchi further teaches the primary particles are in flake form (flake-shaped highly crystalline natural graphite particles, [0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Eguchi further teaches the precursor includes coal tar pitch (coal tar pitch, [0085], which is the mesophase precursor, [0086]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Eguchi (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2004/063321) in view of Miyauchi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0285684). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2004063321-A.
Eguchi is relied upon as described above.
In the alternative, Eguchi does not explicitly teach (a) includes spheroidizing the secondary particle.
Miyauchi teaches a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery that includes secondary particles formed from aggregated primary particles (abstract). Miyaki further teaches that spheroidal graphite particles, specifically spheroidal graphite particles that have been subjected to particle spheroidization treatment are preferable to use in a negative electrode material, as this allows for increased tap density and excellent peeling strength ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have (a) of Eguchi include spheroidizing the secondary particle, as taught by Miyauchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include this step for the improved tap density and peeling strength of the negative electrode active material.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Eguchi (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2004/063321) in view of Greinke (US Patent No. 4,762,566) For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2004063321-A.
Eguchi is relied upon as described above.
Eguchi teaches the precursor is coal tar pitch ([0085])
Eguchi does not explicitly teach the precursor has a softening point of 180°C or less.
Greinke teaches a binder for graphite electrodes (abstract), the binder comprising coal tar pitch (page 6, column 10, lines 40-48). The coal tar pitch has a softening point of 165 °C, which allows for increased flexural strength, density, and reduction in electrical resistance (page 6, column 10, lines 47-57) . This softening point lies within the claimed range of 180 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a precursor with the softening point taught by Greinke in the secondary particle of Eguchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased flexural strength, density, and reduction in electrical resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 08/31/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights