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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 6/30/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1-19 are pending and remain rejected. This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
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 3-4 and 16-18 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.
Claim 3 recites “the natural graphite constitutes from 10% to 50% by mass of the negative active material”. Claim 4 recites “the natural graphite constitutes from 35% to 50% by mass of the negative active material”. However, claim 1 requires “a mass ratio of the artificial graphite to the natural graphite in the negative active material is 9:1 to 75:25” wherein the natural graphite weight percentage is 1-25 % by mass. Thus, claims 3 and 4 recite a range for mass percentage of natural graphite that falls outside the range recited by the mass ratio of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “the lithium-containing phosphate with olivine structure comprises one or more of lithium iron phosphate, a lithium iron phosphate/carbon composite material”, which is indefinite. Examiner suggests “the lithium-containing phosphate with olivine structure comprises one or more of lithium iron phosphate and a lithium iron phosphate/carbon composite material”.
Claim 17 recites the “the center”, which is singular. It is unclear how a distance from a singular center is measured. Examiner suggests language such as “a first center” and “a second center”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "an electrode plate" multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim requires the two circular regions be on the negative electrode plate.
Claim 18 recites the “the center”, which is singular. It is unclear how a distance from a singular center is measured. Examiner suggests language such as “a first center” and “a second center”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "an electrode plate" multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim requires the two circular regions be on the negative electrode plate.
To the extent the claims are understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections above, note the following prior art rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., US 2020/0152964 A1 in view of Nakazawa et al., US 2017/0162906 A1, further in view of CN 109888368A, and/or in view of CN 109704323A.
Li teaches a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator and an electrolyte [0036]. The negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector [0014]. The negative active material comprises a graphite material [0023]. The graphite material of the negative active material may be one or both of artificial graphite and natural graphite [0029]. The resistivity of the negative electrode plate is from 5 Ω.m to 100 Ω.m [0027]. The resistivity of the negative electrode plate may be 10 Ω.m [0022]. See also Table 1. The positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector [0038]. The positive active material may be a lithium transition metal oxide material [0039-0044]. The mass percentage of the graphite material in the negative active material is 50 wt % or more, and the lower limit of the mass percentage of the graphite material in the negative active material is, for example, 50 wt %, 55 wt %, 60 wt %, 65 wt %. 70 wt %, 75 wt %, 80 wt %, 85 wt %, 90 wt %, or 95 wt % [0031]. The compact density of the negative active material layer is preferably from 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 [0026].
Li does not explicitly teach the positive active material may be a lithium-containing phosphate with olivine structure. However, Li teaches the positive active material performs reversible deintercalation/intercalation of lithium ions during operation. Li teaches the positive active material is preferably a manganese-containing positive active material due to high structural stability, low oxidation activity to an electrolyte, inhibition of gas production and improved safety [0039]. Nakazawa teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte wherein the positive electrode active material is a lithium transition metal-based compound. See at least [0361] of Nakazawa
PNG
media_image1.png
323
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
that teaches examples of the phosphate compounds capable of desorbing and inserting Li ions include those classified as having an olivine structure that are typically represented by LiMePO4 including a specific example of LiMnPO4. Nakazawa further teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium transition metal complex oxide and the negative electrode active material may comprise natural graphite and artificial graphite [0263-0269; 0276]. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed because one of skill would have found it obvious to use the LiMnPO4 positive active material of Nakazawa for the positive active material that performs reversible deintercalation/intercalation of lithium ions of Li because Nakazawa teaches the LiMnPO4 and lithium transition metal complex oxide are typically used to desorb and insert lithium ions. In addition, Li teaches the positive active material is preferably a manganese-containing positive active material due to high structural stability, low oxidation activity to an electrolyte, inhibition of gas production and improved safety [0039].
CN 109888368A teaches a lithium ion battery comprising a negative electrode sheet, a positive electrode sheet, a separator and an electrolyte. The negative electrode sheet includes a negative active material comprising a carbon material including artificial graphite and natural graphite having a mass ratio of (5-7) : (3-5). The carbon material may have a median diameter of 5-15 mm. Both natural graphite and artificial graphite have high crystallinity. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the negative active material comprising artificial graphite and natural graphite of Li in the mass ratio and having the median diameter as disclosed by CN 109888368A because the mass ratio and median diameter of the natural graphite and artificial graphite were known in the art for negative active material of lithium ion batteries. CN 109888368A teaches the content of the artificial graphite being greater than the content of natural graphite is beneficial to improve the cycle performance of the lithium ion battery. The particle size of the carbon material is small, which ensures the integrity of the crystal and excellent electrochemical performance.
CN 109704323A teaches a lithium ion battery comprising a negative electrode sheet, a positive electrode sheet, a separator and an electrolyte. The negative electrode sheet includes a negative active material comprising a graphitized carbon material including artificial graphite and natural graphite. The graphitized carbon material having a graphitization degree of 93% to 97%, a compacting density of 1.40-1.85 g/cm3 and an average particle diameter Dv50 of 5-15 mm. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the negative active material comprising artificial graphite and natural graphite of Li having the graphitization degree and Dv50 disclosed by CN 109704323A to provide a negative active material having high specific capacity, long cycle life and excellent rate performance, as taught by 109704323A. See also Table 1 and Table 2 of 109704323A.
Note the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 3-4 above. Regarding claims 3 and 4, CN 109888368A teaches a negative electrode sheet includes a negative active material comprising a carbon material including artificial graphite and natural graphite having a mass ratio of (5-7) : (3-5). The carbon material may have a median diameter of 5-15 mm. Both natural graphite and artificial graphite have high crystallinity. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the negative active material comprising artificial graphite and natural graphite of Li in the mass ratio and having the median diameter as disclosed by CN 109888368A because the mass ratio and median diameter of the natural graphite and artificial graphite were known in the art for negative active material of lithium ion batteries. CN 109888368A teaches the content of the artificial graphite being greater than the content of natural graphite is beneficial to improve the cycle performance of the lithium ion battery. The particle size of the carbon material is small, which ensures the integrity of the crystal and excellent electrochemical performance.
Regarding the mass ratio of claim 1, CN 109888368A teaches a natural graphite mass percentage of 30-50 mass percent. One of skill in the art would have found a 25 mass % of natural graphite obvious in view of the teachings of CN 109888368A as the reference teaches the content of the artificial graphite being greater than the content of natural graphite is beneficial to improve the cycle performance of the lithium ion battery. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical). See MPEP 2144.05. One of skill would have reasonably expected the negative electrode active material of the prior art (30 mass % natural graphite) to have the same properties as the claimed negative electrode active material (25 wt% natural graphite).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 112
The 35 USC rejection of claims 1-2, 5-15 and 19 has been withdrawn. Claims 3-4 and 16-18 remain rejected under 35 USC 112. See reasons for rejection above.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues none of the cited prior art references disclose or teach the mass ratio of claim 1. However, CN109888368A at least suggest the mass ratio of claim 1. Note the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 3-4 above. Regarding claims 3 and 4, CN 109888368A teaches a negative electrode sheet includes a negative active material comprising a carbon material including artificial graphite and natural graphite having a mass ratio of (5-7) : (3-5). The carbon material may have a median diameter of 5-15 mm. Both natural graphite and artificial graphite have high crystallinity. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the negative active material comprising artificial graphite and natural graphite of Li in the mass ratio and having the median diameter as disclosed by CN 109888368A because the mass ratio and median diameter of the natural graphite and artificial graphite were known in the art for negative active material of lithium ion batteries. CN 109888368A teaches the content of the artificial graphite being greater than the content of natural graphite is beneficial to improve the cycle performance of the lithium ion battery. The particle size of the carbon material is small, which ensures the integrity of the crystal and excellent electrochemical performance.
Regarding the mass ratio of claim 1, CN 109888368A teaches a natural graphite mass percentage of 30-50 mass percent. One of skill in the art would have found a 25 mass % of natural graphite obvious in view of the teachings of CN 109888368A as the reference teaches the content of the artificial graphite being greater than the content of natural graphite is beneficial to improve the cycle performance of the lithium ion battery. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical). See MPEP 2144.05. One of skill would have reasonably expected the negative electrode active material of the prior art (30 mass % natural graphite) to have the same properties as the claimed negative electrode active material (25 wt% natural graphite).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2014/024473A1 teaches a negative-electrode material comprising a mixed graphite material including a graphite (A) made of artificial graphite, and a graphite (B) made by processing natural graphite into spherical lumps, wherein a mixture layer made by applying a mixture that includes said mixed graphite material and a binder onto a copper foil, drying the mixture, and then pressurizing (abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights