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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 9 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 June 2026.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 11 August 2025 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 14 December 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has only been considered with respect to those items that have not been lined through.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the specification and abstract the phrase “an synthetic” is repeatedly used. These should be replaced with “a synthetic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of minor informalities. Each of the claims has at least one recitation of “an synthetic graphite”; each of these should be replaced with “a synthetic graphite”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. (JP 2007019257 A; foreign patent document #12 on the IDS filed 14 December 2023) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2012/0171572 A1), and as evidenced by Li et al. (Int. J. Coal. Sci. Technol. 2016, 3(1), 53–61). The provided English machine translation of Tajima is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Tajima teaches a process for producing a synthetic graphite material for lithium-ion secondary battery negative electrodes ([0042]), comprising:
performing a coking treatment on a raw material oil composition by carrying out a delayed coking process to generate a raw coke composition (Coke is usually obtained by heat-treating petroleum-based heavy oil and/or coal-based heavy oil at a pressure of 2.0 MPa or less and a temperature of 400 to 600°C for 3 hours or more….a delayed coker is used for this heat treatment; [0023]-[0024]);
performing a heat treatment on the raw coke composition to obtain a heat-treated raw coke composition (low-temperature calcined carbon powder obtained by reducing the volatile content to less than 1% by weight by carbonization… the carbonization temperature is preferably the lowest temperature at which the volatile content of the raw material powder becomes less than 1% by weight, and is preferably 300°C or higher and less than 1,400°C; [0025] and [0029]);
crushing the heat-treated raw coke composition to obtain heat-treated raw coke powder (and then grinding [the low-temperature calcined carbon powder] to a particle size of less than 30 μm; [0025]);
coating the heat-treated raw coke powder with a coating material to obtain coated heat-treated raw coke powder (Composite coke is obtained by mixing petroleum-based heavy oil and/or coal-based heavy oil with raw material powder and further heat-treating the mixture; [0031]); and
graphitizing the coated heat-treated raw coke powder to obtain a synthetic graphite material for lithium-ion secondary battery negative electrodes (low-temperature calcined carbon powder obtained in this way can be further activated or graphitized depending on the intended use, and used as an electrode material for energy storage devices such as electric double-layer capacitors or lithium secondary batteries; [0042]).
Regarding the surface area of the heat-treated raw coke, while Tajima is silent on the surface area of the heat-treated coke powder, they do teach that it should be heat treated at temperature of 300-1400 °C and crushed to sizes of less than 30 μm ([0025]), temperatures and particle size ranges that overlap with the temperatures (450 °C-750 °C; [0048]) and particle sizes (3 μm to 40 μm; [0064]) of the instant invention, and include the temperatures and particle sizes of the examples ([0124]-[0125]).
Furthermore, while Tajima is not specific about the precise materials from which their coke is made, Suzuki also teaches a method of preparing artificial graphite for negative electrodes of lithium ion batteries (abstract) and further teaches that it is desirable to use raw material oil compositions that have between 5% and 20% normal paraffin content and an aromatic index fa determined by a Knight method in the range of 0.3 to 0.65 ([0033]), and that such materials impart benefits on the structure of the coke obtained therefrom ([0043] and [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of Tajima a raw material oil composition with a normal paraffin content of between 5% and 20% and an aromatic index fa determined by a Knight method in the range of 0.3 to 0.65, as taught by Suzuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because of the beneficial effects on the structure of the coke derived from using such a composition, as taught by Suzuki.
Because the method suggested by the combination of Tajima and Suzuki uses substantially similar starting material, heat treatment temperatures, and particle sizes, it may be concluded that the pulverized heat-treated coke of modified Tajima will have similar surface area to the pulverized heat-treated coke of the instant invention, including in the instantly claimed range of 10.5 m2/g or greater.
Additionally, Tajima teaches that temperature of heat treatment is a result effective variable that effects volatile content and density ([0029]), variables that Tajima suggests are important to control. Li provides evidence that heat treatment temperature also effects the surface area of petroleum coke (Table 6). Therefore, by optimizing the temperature through routine experimentation, as suggested by Tajima, one would also be varying the specific surface area of the heat-treated coke, which given the similarities to the instant invention, would also include values in the instantly claimed range. Therefore, the specific surface areas of greater than 10.5 m2/g is considered an obvious variant or routine optimization of the property inherently possessed by the compositions taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Tajima teaches the method of claim 1, where Tajima teaches keeping the volatile content of the heat-treated coke powder at less than 1% ([0025]), which lies entirely within the claimed range of less than 3.71%, and the true density of the heat-treated raw-coke powder at less than 1.9 g/cm3, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than 1.22 g/cm3 and less than 1.73 g/cm3. It is further noted that Tajima teaches that the raw-coke powder before heat treatment has a density of 1.40 g/cm3 ([0046]) and that it is desirable to use their low-temperature calcining conditions in order to reduce volatile content while keeping density of the heat-treated materials low ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the heat treatment temperature in order to achieve the desired balance of volatile content and density, including to densities within the instantly claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Tajima teaches keeping density low such that the true density obtained after the mixing/coating step is in the range of 1.30 to 1.90 g/cm3 ([0033]).
It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). Therefore, the claimed ranges merely represent an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Tajima teaches the method of claim 1, where Tajima teaches performing the heat treatment on the raw coke composition to obtain the heat treated raw coke composition at a temperature in the range of 300°C or higher and less than 1400°C ([0029]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 500 °C to 700 °C. Tajima also teaches that this temperature is a result effective variable that effects both the level of undesirable volatile components and the density of the obtained powders ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the temperature of the heat treatment by routine experimentation to obtained the desired balance of these two variables, thereby arriving at temperatures within the claimed range of 500 °C to 700 °C.
It is again noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tajima teaches the method of claim 1, where Suzuki teaches using raw material oil compositions that have between 5% and 20% normal paraffin content and an aromatic index fa determined by a Knight method in the range of 0.3 to 0.65 ([0033]), as analyzed for claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wakizaka et al. (US 20150364751 A1) teach a method for producing a synthetic graphite material for lithium-ion secondary battery negative electrodes, comprising: performing a coking treatment on a raw material oil composition by a delayed coking process to ([0059]); crushing the heat-treated raw coke composition ([0165] and [0161]); coating the heat-treated raw coke powder with a coating material ([0079], and [0165]); and, graphitizing the coated heat-treated raw coke powder to obtain a synthetic graphite material for lithium-ion secondary battery negative electrodes ([0091] and [0165]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
