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 .
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The following is a section from the MPEP 2144.05 concerning the obviousness of ranges: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). Similarly, 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US Pub 2011/0280789 cited in IDS).
In regard to claims 1, 9 and 11, Suzuki et al. teach an electrochemical device, comprising a positive electrode plate, an electrolyte solution and a negative electrode plate; the negative electrode plate comprising a negative current collector and a negative active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative current collector (paragraph [0115-0133]);
wherein the negative active material layer comprises a negative active material (paragraph [0100]), and the negative active material comprises a hard carbon material; wherein the hard carbon material has a pore structure, the pore structure comprises micropores, a pore volume of the micropores of the hard carbon material measured by a nitrogen adsorption method is 0.01 cc/g (in Example 5, Table 1 – paragraphs [0135-0157]).
While the prior art does not perform small-angle X-ray scattering spectrum analysis on the carbon material, Suzuki et al. forms the hard carbon in substantially the same way as the instant application, including polymerization of similar monomers (step A) followed by heat treatments steps (B-D) under various conditions such as an inert or reducing atmosphere at high temperatures in a rotary kiln (paragraphs [0004-0008] for general process description).
Therefore, while the prior art does not perform the same testing on the hard carbon material, the material of the prior art is reasonably presumed to have a scattering vector of the hard carbon material in a small-angle X-ray scattering spectrum is N1, and 0.1 nm–1 ≤ N1 ≤ 7 nm–1, and the hard carbon material exhibits a scattering intensity convex peak, a full-width-at-half-maximum of the convex peak is L1, and 0.1 nm–1 ≤ L1 ≤ 3.5 nm–1, or ranges of properties which overlap or are close enough to the claimed properties in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 and 2112.01 above - the prior art material is substantially identical in structure and composition, and is produced by a substantially identical processes, therefore, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established).
In regard to claim 2 and 12, Suzuki et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, wherein a pore volume of the pore structure of the hard carbon material measured by the nitrogen adsorption method is V1, and V1 is 0.02 cc/ g (Table 1, Example 5, total pore volume of micropores and mesopores is 0.02).
In regard to claim 3 and 13, Suzuki et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, wherein the hard carbon material is formed from a polymer which is formed in the presence of a basic catalyst such as alkali metal carbonate (sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate etc. – paragraphs [0050-0051]) therefore while no specific content of the alkali metal is disclosed, trace amounts of Na or K may be present in the hard carbon of the prior art in a manner which obviates the claimed range.
In regard to claim 4 and 14, Suzuki et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, wherein the hard carbon material contains a non-metal element R other than carbon, the non-metal element R comprises at least one of H or N; based on a mass of the hard carbon material, a mass percent of the non-metal element such as H or N is B%, and B is 0.0011 or 0.002 respectively for Example 5 in Table 1.
In regard to claim 5 and 15, Suzuki et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11 above, while not X-ray Diffraction pattern is shown, the prior art has the same composition, structure and formation method as applied above and therefore reasonably presumed to have an X-ray diffraction pattern of the hard carbon material shows a characteristic peak corresponding to a diffraction angle of 18° to 30°, a full-width-at-half-maximum of the characteristic peak is L2, and 4° ≤ L2 ≤ 12°, or ranges of properties which overlap or are close enough to the claimed properties in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 and 2112.01 above - the prior art material is substantially identical in structure and composition, and is produced by a substantially identical processes, therefore, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established).
In regard to claim 6 and 16, Suzuki et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, where the initial cycle capacity and fourth cycle capacity are measured and shown in Table 2, such as an initial capacity of 423 mAh/g and a fourth cycle of 174 mAh/g (paragraphs [0140-0144] i.e. C4/C1 ~ 0.411 – C4 the fourth cycle capacity and C1 the first cycle capacity). Therefore, while a second or third cycle capacity, lithiation (charge) or de-lithiation (discharge) is not explicitly measured by the prior art the prior art material is substantially identical in structure and composition, and is produced by a substantially identical processes, therefore, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
In regard to claim 7 and 17, Suzuki et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, which may be charged or discharged under a potential from 0 to 1.5 V (see paragraph [0142]) in a manner which obviates the claimed range.
In regard to claim 8, Suzuki et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, and a Dv50 of the hard carbon material is preferably 5 or 6 micron (paragraph [0096]) and the BET surface area was 6 m2/g (paragraph [0137]).
In regard to claim 10, 18 and 19, Suzuki et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 9 and 11, wherein heat treatment allows the compacted density of the negative active material layer to be optimized (paragraph [0070]) and while no porosity as a percentage is disclosed, the prior art structure includes the a controlled total pore volume which overlaps the claimed ranges as applied to claims 2 and 12 above and therefore is reasonably expected to have the a porosity which overlaps the claimed range.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakshaug et al. (WO 2014/201275 using US Pub 2020/0280070 for reference below, both cited in IDS).
In regard to claims 1, 9 and 11, Sakshaug et al. teach an electrochemical device, comprising a positive electrode plate, an electrolyte solution and a negative electrode plate; the negative electrode plate comprising a negative current collector and a negative active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative current collector (paragraph [0002, 0283-0305]);
wherein the negative active material layer comprises a negative active material (abstract), and the negative active material comprises a hard carbon material; wherein the hard carbon material has a pore structure, the pore structure comprises micropores, a total pore volume (including the micropores) of the hard carbon material measured by a nitrogen adsorption method is 0.001 to 0.1 cc/g (paragraphs [0009, 0108] – see pore size discussion and criticality of pore control in paragraph [0131-0134])) which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
While the prior art does not perform small-angle X-ray scattering spectrum analysis on the carbon material, Sakshaug et al. forms the hard carbon in substantially the same way as the instant application, including polymerization of similar monomers followed by heat treatments steps under various conditions such as an inert or reducing atmosphere at high temperatures in a kiln (paragraphs [0104-0213] for general process description).
Therefore, while the prior art does not perform the same testing on the hard carbon material, the material of the prior art is reasonably presumed to have a scattering vector of the hard carbon material in a small-angle X-ray scattering spectrum is N1, and 0.1 nm–1 ≤ N1 ≤ 7 nm–1, and the hard carbon material exhibits a scattering intensity convex peak, a full-width-at-half-maximum of the convex peak is L1, and 0.1 nm–1 ≤ L1 ≤ 3.5 nm–1, or ranges of properties which overlap or are close enough to the claimed properties in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 and 2112.01 above - the prior art material is substantially identical in structure and composition, and is produced by a substantially identical processes, therefore, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established).
In regard to claim 2 and 12, Sakshaug et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, wherein a pore volume of the pore structure of the hard carbon material measured by the nitrogen adsorption method is V1, and V1 is 0.001 to 0.1 cc/g (paragraphs [0009, 0108] – see pore size discussion and criticality of pore control in paragraph [0131-0134]) which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 3 and 13, Sakshaug et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, wherein the hard carbon material may include 1000ppm sodium (paragraphs [0183]).
In regard to claim 4 and 14, Sakshaug et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, wherein the hard carbon material contains a non-metal element R other than carbon, the non-metal element R comprises N in an amount (paragraph [0158]) which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 5 and 15, Sakshaug et al. show and XRD pattern (figure 4) which appears to show a characteristic peak corresponding to a diffraction angle of 18° to 30°, a full-width-at-half-maximum of the characteristic peak is L2, and 4° ≤ L2 ≤ 12° in a manner which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 6 and 16, Sakshaug et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, further in paragraph [0019] –
“In various embodiments, the carbon material exhibits less than 10% capacity decrease when the current density is raised from an initial value to 40 times the initial value. In other embodiments, the carbon material exhibits less than 5% capacity decrease when the current density is raised from an initial value to 30 times the initial value. In yet other embodiments, the carbon material exhibits less than 2% capacity decrease when the current density is raised from an initial value to 20 times the initial value.”
Which overlaps the claimed ranges for capacity retention in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 7 and 17, Sakshaug et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, which may be charged or discharged under at various potentials (see paragraph [0300]) in a manner which obviates the claimed range.
In regard to claim 8, Sakshaug et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 1 and 11, and a Dv50 of the hard carbon material is preferably 5 or 15 micron (paragraph [0139]) and the BET surface area was 15 m2/g (paragraph [0116]).
In regard to claim 10, 18 and 19, Sakshaug et al. teach the hard carbon material according to claim 9 and 11, with a tap density such as 1.0 g/cc (paragraph [0009]) and while no porosity as a percentage is disclosed, the prior art structure includes the a controlled total pore volume (paragraphs [0141-0143]) which overlaps the claimed ranges as applied to claims 2 and 12 above and therefore is reasonably expected to have the a porosity which overlaps the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xue et al. US Patent No. 6,316,144 newly cited, teaches characterizing hard caron with small angle scattering (see figures).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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 P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights