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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/25 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 10 are pending examination, claims 8-9 have been canceled by applicant.
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(s) 1-2, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al (US 2020/0365884; hereafter Yasuda) in view of Li et al (JP 2015-106563; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Li).
Claim 1: Yasuda teaches a method for manufacturing negative electrode material particles (See, for example, abstract), comprising the steps of:
Mixing silicon oxide granules with a powder of a pitch without using any liquid organic solvents, so as to obtain a mixture (See, for example, [0073], [0075]); and
Heating the mixture at to a carbonization temperature of 700oC or greater for 5 hours so that the thus melted pitch is carbonized and forms a carbon film on a surface of each of the silicon oxide granules thereby obtaining the negative electrode material particles (see, for example, abstract, [0077-0078], [0279]). Although the range of 700oC is not explicitly 900°C as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature of 900oC since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Wherein each of the negative electrode material particles has a mean particle size of 5.5to 6.7 micron (See, for example, [0106], [0113], Table 1-2).
Yasuda is silent as to the heating rate for dry mixed methods, so it does not explicitly teach a heating rate of 0.071oC/min. Li teaches a method of producing carbon coated silicon oxide based anode material involving thermal carbonization of a dry mix of the silicon based material with a pitch powder (See, for example, [0001], [0031], [0039], [0052]). Li further teaches wherein a predictable and suitable heating rate to bring the sample up to carbonization temperatures is less than 20 oC/minute or less, (See, for example, [0034], [0043]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a heating rate ranging from 20 oC/minute or less since such a rate is known in art to conventionally achieve heating dry mixtures of silicon based granules with pitch powder to carbonization temperature; and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Although such a range is not explicitly 0.71oC/min, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a heating rate within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 2: (refer to the rejection of claim 1 above), Yasuda further teaches wherein in step (b), the negative electrode material particles are subjected to a filtering process (such as sieving) after heating so as to obtain the negative electrode material particles having the mean particle size ranging from 2 μm to 11 μm (See, for example, [0106] [0145]).
Claims 6-7: Yasuda further teaches wherein in step (a), the pitch is present in an amount of 34 g of pitch relative to 1000 g of silicon oxide particles (thus 3.4 : 100) (see, for example, [0279]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKinney et al (US 2023/0080961; hereafter McKinney)
Claim 3: Yasuda in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1 (above), wherein Li further teaches that the carbon source / pitch particles are preferably of D50 = 1.0 to 5.0, but is silent as to suitable D10 and D90, so they do not explicitly teach wherein the pitch has a D10 particle size ranging from 0.5 μm to 2.0 μm, a D50 particle size ranging from 2 μm to 4 μm, and a D90 particle size ranging from 5 μm to 9 μm. McKinney teaches a method of preparing carbon coated particles for electrode materials (See, for example, abstract). McKinney further teaches wherein pitch is the carbon source and following mixing with the core particle, the coating is formed carbonizing at elevate temperature (See, for example, abstract, [0045-0047], [0090]). McKinney, like Li, teaches the D50 for the pitch is preferably <5 micron; and further specifically possessing D10, D50, and D90 of 0.76 to 2.6, 2.49 to 4.92, and 4.47 to 8.7 micron respectively (see, for example, Table 15, further such as specific combinations that anticipate the claimed ranges). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pitch comprising a D10 particle size ranging from 0.76 to 2.6 μm, a D50 particle size ranging from 2.49 to 4.92 μm, and a D90 particle size ranging from 4.47 to 8.7 μm. Since such particle size distribution agrees with the general guidance of Li toward desired D50, since such a pitch size distribution achieves predictable carbon coated film upon host particles by carbonization, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Particular exemplary embodiments of Table 1 anticipate the claimed ranges, but alternatively even though the overall ranges collectively of D10 of 0.76 to 2.6 μm, a D50 particle size ranging from 2.49 to 4.92 μm, and a D90 particle size ranging from 4.47 to 8.7 μm are not explicitly a D10 particle size ranging from 0.5 μm to 2.0 μm, a D50 particle size ranging from 2 μm to 4 μm, and a D90 particle size ranging from 5 μm to 9 μm as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such sizes since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuka et al (US 2017/0040610; hereafter Otsuka).
Claim 4: Yasuda in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1 (above) but they are silent as to softening point of the pitch, so they do not explicitly teaches it as not lower than 250oC. Otsuka teaches a method of preparing a negative electrode material including silicon containing particles and a carbon coating (See, for example, abstract). Otsuka further teaches wherein the pitch and silicon containing particles in a dry mixture undergo thermal processing at carbonization temperatures (See, for example, examples). Otsuka further teaches wherein the softening point of the pitch influences the production cost, porosity, specific surface area, viscosity, and ability to be mixed with the silicon containing particles, and preferably is from 80oC to 300oC (See, for example, [0060]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pitch having a softening point of from 80oC to 300oC since it would predictably provide for reduced cost, tailorable porosity and specific surface area, as well as improved uniformity of mixing. Although such a softening point is not explicitly not lower than 250oC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated a softening point within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 5: (refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 4 above), Otsuka further teaches wherein the pitch precursor should preferably possess a C:H ratio (residual carbon ratio) of between 0.25 to 2.33, further 0.33 to 1.5 (20% to70%, further 25% to 60% by mass) as such a ratio of the pitch influences the production cost, porosity, specific surface area, viscosity, and ability to be mixed with the silicon containing particles, (See, for example, [0061]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pitch having a carbon to hydrogen ratio of 0.25 to 2.33 since it would predictably provide for reduced cost, tailorable porosity and specific surface area, as well as improved uniformity of mixing. Although such a ratio is not explicitly from 1.43 to 1.66 as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated a softening point within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imaji et al (US 2019/0221835; hereafter Imaji).
Claim 5: Yasuda in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1 (above) but they are silent as to the Carbon : Hydrogen ratio of the pitch, so they do not explicitly teach C: H ranging from 1.43 to 1.66. Imaji teaches a method of preparing a negative electrode material including silicon containing particles and a carbon coating (See, for example, abstract, [0128). Imaji further teaches wherein the pitch and silicon containing particles in a dry mixture undergo thermal processing at carbonization temperatures (See, for example, [0128-0131]). Imaji further teaches a suitable H:C ratio of the pitch for such coating methods is 0.65 (or in terms of C:H ~1.54) (See, for example, [0128]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pitch having a C:H ratio of 1.54 since such a pitch would achieve the predictable result of forming a carbon film on silicon containing particles in a dry mixture undergoing thermal processing at carbonization temperatures, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al (US 2022/0328816; hereafter Deng).
Claim 10: Yasuda in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1 (above) but they are silent as to the thickness of the carbon film formed thereon; so they do not explicitly teach the carbon film formed on the surface of each of the silicon oxide granules has a thickness ranging from 0.5 μm to 2.0 μm. Deng teaches a method of forming a negative electrode material with a core comprising silicon oxide and an outer carbon layer applied thereon via carbonization from a dry mix thermal method (See, for example, abstract, [0073-75], [0090], [0094]). Deng further teaches wherein the thickness of the carbon coating influences ion transmission efficiency, performance, electrical conductivity, and ability to suppress volume expansion, and should possess a thickness of 1 micron (See, for example, [0075]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a carbon film thickness of 1 micron since it would predictably serve to aid predictable ion transmission efficiency, performance, electrical conductivity, and ability to suppress volume expansion, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Alternatively Deng has more generally taught the thickness as from 10 nm to 2000 nm (see, for example, [0075]). Although this range is not explicitly 0.5 to 2 micron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thickness within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (JP 2015-106563; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Li).
Claim 1: Li teaches a method for manufacturing negative electrode material particles, (See, for example, [0001], [0031], [0039], [0052]) comprising the steps of:
Mixing silicon oxide granules with a powder of a pitch without using any liquid organic solvents, so as to obtain a mixture (See, for example, [0031], [0039], [0052]); and
Heating the mixture at a heating rate of less than less than 20 oC/minute or less to a carbonization temperature of 700-1050oC for 1-10 hours so that the thus melted pitch is carbonized and forms a carbon film on a surface of each of the silicon oxide granules thereby obtaining the negative electrode material particles (see, for example, [0031], [0034], [0043] [0039], [0052]]). Although such a range is not explicitly 900oC it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a carbonization temperature within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Although such a range is not explicitly 0.71oC/min it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a heating rate within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Although such a range is not explicitly not less than 5 hrs it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a heating duration within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Wherein each of the negative electrode material particles has a mean particle size of 10 to 35 micron (See, for example, [0032] [0052]). Although such a range is not explicitly 2 micron to 11 micron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a mean particle size within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 2: (refer to the rejection of claim 1 above), Li further teaches wherein in step (b), the negative electrode material particles are subjected to a filtering process (such as sieving) after heating so as to obtain the negative electrode material particles having the mean particle size ranging from 2 μm to 11 μm (See, for example, [0032]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKinney.
Claim 3: Li teaches the method of claim 1 (above), wherein Li further teaches that the carbon source / pitch particles are preferably of D50 = 1.0 to 5.0, but is silent as to suitable D10 and D90, so it does not explicitly teach wherein the pitch has a D10 particle size ranging from 0.5 μm to 2.0 μm, a D50 particle size ranging from 2 μm to 4 μm, and a D90 particle size ranging from 5 μm to 9 μm. McKinney teaches a method of preparing carbon coated particles for electrode materials (See, for example, abstract). McKinney further teaches wherein pitch is the carbon source and following mixing with the core particle, the coating is formed carbonizing at elevate temperature (See, for example, abstract, [0045-0047], [0090]). McKinney, like Li, teaches the D50 for the pitch is preferably <5 micron; and further specifically possessing D10, D50, and D90 of 0.76 to 2.6, 2.49 to 4.92, and 4.47 to 8.7 micron respectively (see, for example, Table 15, further such as specific combinations that anticipate the claimed ranges). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pitch comprising a D10 particle size ranging from 0.76 to 2.6 μm, a D50 particle size ranging from 2.49 to 4.92 μm, and a D90 particle size ranging from 4.47 to 8.7 μm. Since such particle size distribution agrees with the general guidance of Li toward desired D50, since such a pitch size distribution achieves predictable carbon coated film upon host particles by carbonization, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Particular exemplary embodiments of Table 1 anticipate the claimed ranges, but alternatively even though the overall ranges collectively of D10 of 0.76 to 2.6 μm, a D50 particle size ranging from 2.49 to 4.92 μm, and a D90 particle size ranging from 4.47 to 8.7 μm are not explicitly a D10 particle size ranging from 0.5 μm to 2.0 μm, a D50 particle size ranging from 2 μm to 4 μm, and a D90 particle size ranging from 5 μm to 9 μm as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated such sizes since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuka.
Claim 4: Li teaches the method of claim 1 (above) but is silent as to softening point of the pitch, so it does not explicitly teaches it as not lower than 250oC. Otsuka teaches a method of preparing a negative electrode material including silicon containing particles and a carbon coating (See, for example, abstract). Otsuka further teaches wherein the pitch and silicon containing particles in a dry mixture undergo thermal processing at carbonization temperatures (See, for example, examples). Otsuka further teaches wherein the softening point of the pitch influences the production cost, porosity, specific surface area, viscosity, and ability to be mixed with the silicon containing particles, and preferably is from 80oC to 300oC (See, for example, [0060]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pitch having a softening point of from 80oC to 300oC since it would predictably provide for reduced cost, tailorable porosity and specific surface area, as well as improved uniformity of mixing. Although such a softening point is not explicitly not lower than 250oC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated a softening point within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 5: (refer to the rejections of claim 1 over Li alone and 4 over Li in view of Otsuka above), Otsuka further teaches wherein the pitch precursor should preferably possess a C:H ratio (residual carbon ratio) of between 0.25 to 2.33, further 0.33 to 1.5 (20% to70%, further 25% to 60% by mass) as such a ratio of the pitch influences the production cost, porosity, specific surface area, viscosity, and ability to be mixed with the silicon containing particles, (See, for example, [0061]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pitch having a carbon to hydrogen ratio of 0.25 to 2.33 since it would predictably provide for reduced cost, tailorable porosity and specific surface area, as well as improved uniformity of mixing. Although such a ratio is not explicitly from 1.43 to 1.66 as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have incorporated a softening point within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imaji.
Claim 5: Li teaches the method of claim 1 (above) but is silent as to the Carbon : Hydrogen ratio of the pitch, so it does not explicitly teach C: H ranging from 1.43 to 1.66. Imaji teaches a method of preparing a negative electrode material including silicon containing particles and a carbon coating (See, for example, abstract, [0128). Imaji further teaches wherein the pitch and silicon containing particles in a dry mixture undergo thermal processing at carbonization temperatures (See, for example, [0128-0131]). Imaji further teaches a suitable H:C ratio of the pitch for such coating methods is 0.65 (or in terms of C:H ~1.54) (See, for example, [0128]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pitch having a C:H ratio of 1.54 since such a pitch would achieve the predictable result of forming a carbon film on silicon containing particles in a dry mixture undergoing thermal processing at carbonization temperatures, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng.
Claim 10: Li teaches the method of claim 1 (above) but is silent as to the thickness of the carbon film formed thereon; so it does not explicitly teach the carbon film formed on the surface of each of the silicon oxide granules has a thickness ranging from 0.5 μm to 2.0 μm. Deng teaches a method of forming a negative electrode material with a core comprising silicon oxide and an outer carbon layer applied thereon via carbonization from a dry mix thermal method (See, for example, abstract, [0073-75], [0090], [0094]). Deng further teaches wherein the thickness of the carbon coating influences ion transmission efficiency, performance, electrical conductivity, and ability to suppress volume expansion, and should possess a thickness of 1 micron (See, for example, [0075]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a carbon film thickness of 1 micron since it would predictably serve to aid predictable ion transmission efficiency, performance, electrical conductivity, and ability to suppress volume expansion, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Alternatively Deng has more generally taught the thickness as from 10 nm to 2000 nm (see, for example, [0075]). Although this range is not explicitly 0.5 to 2 micron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thickness within the claimed range since 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to both the 35 USC 103 rejections of claim 1 over Yasuda in view of Li, or over Li alone, the examiner agrees with Applicant’s statement that “Li describes heating rates of less than 20oC / min”. Applicant then argues that Li’s further disclosure of preferred ranges of 1-15 and 2-10 C/min “would lead a skilled artisan away from sub – 1oC/ min heating. The examiner disagrees and asserts that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Li has explicitly disclosed the broader range of less than 20oC/min as a part of its invention and does not criticize or discredit temperatures therein. Thus the examiner maintains reliance upon the overlapping heating rate of Li is apt.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/16/25 is insufficient to overcome the prior art rejections of the claims as set forth in the last Office action because: Applicant argues that a heating rate of 0.71 C/min and carbonization temperature of 900oC provides unexpected results. Particularly noting Example 5, and supplemental data provided from newly presented E4D’ and E5’. Wherein samples E4D / E4D’and E5 /E5’were each carbonized at 900C for 5 hrs but differed in heating rates of 1.00 vs 0.71 respectively resulting in differing Id/Ig ratios and ICE values. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The examiner notes that a singular comparative example does not adequately support the assertion of unexpected results, and that this argued singular data point is not commensurate in scope with claims. Particularly, it is noted that these exemplary products were prepared from unique and specific materials (SX-3 for the sio2, ZL250M for the pitch), mixed under particular conditions, provided at a specific ratio (4:100 parts pitch: Si), heated at a singular temperature (900C) held at a singular duration (5 hrs). These materials each possessing particular sizes, crystallinity, mode of formation, reactivity, melting temperature, softening temperature, chemistry (such as coal tar-, petroleum-, or plant -derived; carbon content, MW, etc). Further for testing, they are combined with very specific materials (CMC, CNT, carbon black, SBR, DI water, Cu foil, Li foil, PP+PE separator, unique electrolyte) at unique concentrations and processed under unique conditions. Whereas the claim is open to any silicon oxide granule, any type of pitch, for a duration of at or beyond 5 hrs, with obtained particles of mean particle size anywhere between 2-11 micron further open to use (or testing) in combination with any materials. It is unclear from the limited data if any of these unique exemplary conditions (or combinations thereof) are actually requisite in achieving the argued results. For example, the Declarant / Applicant has argued that “the improvement arises because heating at the specific rate…in combination with the carbonization temperature…permits the pitch to soften gradually and melt more uniformly, reducing viscosity and allowing sufficient time for the carbon atoms to rearrange into sp2-hybridized domains” (pg 6 of remarks, and pg 3 of Declaration). As these exemplary products were prepared from singular unique and specific materials (SX-3 for the sio2, ZL250M for the pitch), mixed under particular conditions, provided at specific ratio (4:100 parts pitch:Si), heated at a singular temperature (900C) held at a singular duration (5 hrs), and these materials each possessing particular sizes, crystallinity, mode of formation, reactivity, melting temperature, softening temperature, chemistry (such as coal tar-, petroleum-, or plant -derived; carbon content, MW, etc). Any one and / or a combination of the above properties within the overall system would influence the behavior of the pitches ability to soften and melt and further influence its viscosity / temperature profile thus influencing the resulting uniformity. As such the examiner cannot adequately ascertain if the behavior reported by Applicant is solely achievable when this temperature and heating rate are used in combination with the above singular specific materials (such as SX-3 for the sio2, ZL250M for the pitch) and further associated conditions (as articulated above) or not. Thus there is no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions / materials / processing conditions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the one unique combination tested (MPEP 716.02(d)).
The examiner additionally notes that per applicant’s Table 4 and Declarant’s Table A, E5’ possesses an ICE% lower than E4F (prepared at 1.22 C/min) which resides outside of the claimed range. The higher the ICE indicates higher battery stability and capacity retention, thus the results herein appear to act contrary to Applicant’s position.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712