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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 7, 2023 and July 16, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 12-13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawai (US Pub. No. 2017/0084921).
Regarding claims 12-13, Kawai teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (paragraph [0024]) comprising a positive electrode, and a negative electrode (paragraph [0173]), wherein the negative electrode includes a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one side of the current collector (paragraph [0072]), the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material with a specific embodiment including graphite particles A5 (taken to be the claimed graphite particles (A)), wherein the graphite particles are coated with pitch and carbon black (taken to be the claimed amorphous carbon coating), the graphite particles having an average particle diameter of 5 μm, and graphite particles A1 (claimed graphite particles (B)) coated with pitch and carbon black (claimed amorphous carbon fine particles) and resulting in numerous fine protrusions (taken to be the claimed supported amorphous carbon fine particles) (paragraphs [0032]-[0034], [0043] and [0101]-[0113]), 100 parts by weight of the graphite particles A1 having an average particle diameter of 11 μm and 20 parts by weight of the furnace black carbon black having an arithmetic average particle diameter of 46 nm (paragraph [0101]). Calculating the number per area using the formula of w * ρ_gr * D / (π * ρ_CB * d3) where w is mass CB per unit mass graphite = 0.2, D is graphite diameter = 11 μm = 1.1*10-3 cm, d is CB diameter = 46 nm = 4.6 * 10-6 cm, ρ_gr is graphite density = 2.2 g/cm3, and ρ_CB is carbon black density = 1.8 g/cm3, results in an amount per unit area of 8.8 *1011 per cm2 = 8,800 particles/μm2, falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Kawai teaches that the graphite particles are particles of a natural graphite (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Kawai teaches another specific embodiment, including graphite particles A6 (taken to be the claimed graphite particles (A)), wherein the graphite particles are coated with pitch and carbon black (taken to be the claimed amorphous carbon coating), the graphite particles having an average particle diameter of 5 μm, and graphite particles A3 (claimed graphite particles (B)) coated with pitch and carbon black (claimed amorphous carbon fine particles) and resulting in numerous fine protrusions (taken to be the claimed supported amorphous carbon fine particles) (paragraphs [0032]-[0034], [0043] and [0101]-[0114]), the graphite particles A3 having an average particle diameter of 23 μm and the acetylene black carbon black having an arithmetic average particle diameter of 35 nm (paragraph [0103]) (such diameters of acetylene black and graphite resulting in the number of the amorphous carbon fine particles per unit area able to be far greater than 0.4 pieces/μm2 in the graphite particles (B) on which the amorphous carbon fine particles are supported, because the furnace black has an average diameter of 35 nm, many, many of which can fit in 1 μm2., the blending ratio being 1:1 (paragraph [0114]), resulting in a mass ratio A/B of 1, falling within the claimed range of 0.25 to 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US Pub. No. 2017/0084921).
Regarding claim 14, as was set forth above, Kawai teaches a specific embodiment including graphite particles A5 (taken to be the claimed graphite particles (A)) having an average particle diameter of 5 μm, and graphite particles A1 (claimed graphite particles (B)) having an average particle diameter of 11 μm and the furnace black carbon black having an arithmetic average particle diameter of 46 nm (paragraphs [0101], [0105] and [0113]). For such an embodiment, the graphite particles have an average size between 4 and 12 μm as claimed, and the amorphous carbon fine particles have an average size of 0.46 μm, such an amount being expected to have the same properties as the claimed 0.05 to 0.5 μm range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use amorphous carbon fine particles having average size within the claimed range, because the disclosed embodiment is close enough that one would have expected them to have the same properties. “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yamada (US Pat. No. 5,576,121).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 18, Kawai does not specifically disclose a copper oxide. Yamada teaches using cupric oxide (CuO) in a negative electrode active material in an amount of 8% with respect to the total weight of the negative electrode active material and the copper oxide (column 9, lines 42-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use cupric oxide as taught by Yamada in the negative electrode active material of Kawai in order to significantly improve the capacity of the battery (see Yamada at column 3, lines 41-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 29, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights