DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 04/18/2024, 06/23/2025 and 01/08/2026 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 04/18/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claims 6, 8, 13,14, 15 it is unclear what is a lower limit of claimed range expressed in: nm? microns? In addition, in claim 15 it is not clear how volume can be expressed in linear units , microns?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1,3,10,15,16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by WO 2022121136 to Ge (Ge, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ge discloses a preparation method of artificial graphite (Claim1), comprising: heat-treating a graphite raw material to obtain artificial graphite (claim 2, para 21) wherein: an ambient atmosphere of the heat treatment is a mixed gas comprising a gas that is at least one of oxygen or water vapor and comprising a chemically inert gas (claim 3), and the chemically inert gas is nitrogen or inert gas (claim 3, balanced gas) and during the heat treatment, the graphite raw material is in a motion state (para 21, rotary kiln). As su8ch instant claim 1 is anticipated by Ge.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ge discloses wherein precursor A was made at 350oC at fluidized bed (re claim 3). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 10, Ge discloses an artificial graphite (claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Ge discloses wherein Dv50 is 9 µm (para16, 25, claim 10). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 16, Ge discloses wherein a tap density of the artificial graphite is 0.80 g/cm3 (para 16).
Regarding claims 18-20, Ge discloses a negative electrode material (para 17) and a battery (para 17, claim 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2022121136 to Ge (Ge, machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Ge discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 3 and incorporated therein. Ge does not expressly disclose wherein rotation speed of the furnace tube or the mechanical rod is 1 to 8 r/min. However, Since the criticality of using the rotational speed in a range 1-8 rpm- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such rotational speed in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Ge, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the rotational speed of the furnace as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Ge discloses wherein the oxygen content in the mixed gas is in the range from 5% to 100 % vol (claim 3).In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a 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 2144.05. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize content of oxygen based on the data of Ge in order to obtain a graphite anode material with no burr on surface and smooth surface and as such significantly improve fast charging performance while ensuring high energy density and good processing performance (para 6)
Regarding claim 6, Ge discloses wherein an average particle size of the graphite raw material D50 in the range 2~50 μm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a 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 2144.05. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize D50 .based on the data of Ge in order to obtain a graphite anode material with no burr on surface and smooth surface and as such significantly improve fast charging performance while ensuring high energy density and good processing performance (para 6).
Regarding claim 7, Ge discloses further comprising: crushing a solid-state carbon source to obtain a granular solid-state carbon source, shaping the granular solid-state carbon source to obtain shaped particles; and graphitizing the shaped particles to obtain an artificial graphite raw material (claim 1, step 4).
Regarding claim 8, Ge discloses wherein the graphitization is performed at a temperature of 2800 °C (para 21). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 9, Ge discloses wherein granulating the shaped particles comprises: mixing a carbon source binder with the shaped particles, and then performing granulation and molding (claim 1, step 4).
Regarding claim 17, Ge discloses wherein the specific surface area is 0.5~5 m2/g (claim 10). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a 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 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the specific surface area .based on the data of Ge in order to obtain a graphite anode material with no burr on surface and smooth surface and as such significantly improve fast charging performance while ensuring high energy density and good processing performance (para 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-14 depend from claim 11 directly or indirectly and fall therewith.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights