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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 13, 2024, June 13, 2025, and February 18, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative and/or cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Claims reciting the claim limitation of “and/or” is interpreted as “or.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9-11 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.
Claims 9-11 are dependent on claim 7 and recite claim limitations of the artificial graphite characterized by the values P5k, η, and η/ P5k that are not defined in claim 7.
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.
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 1-7, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109437184), hereinafter referred to as Chen, in view of Fujiwara et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20100035149 A), hereinafter referred to as Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches method to provide a high-rate lithium-ion battery graphite anode material (“a method for preparing an artificial graphite”) (see e.g., paragraph [0008]). Chen teaches the method comprises a surface oxidation treatment in which the carbonized material produced after raw material crushing and shaping and graphitization is oxidized to obtain the high-rate lithium-ion battery graphite anode material (see e.g., paragraph [0015]). Chen teaches the carbonized material in the surface oxidation treatment is placed in a kiln (“subjecting a graphite raw material to a heat treatment to obtain the artificial graphite”) and oxidized by introducing air and nitrogen (“wherein an environmental atmosphere for the heat treatment is a mixed gas of at least one gas of air and a chemically inert gas”), wherein the oxidation temperature is 500-800°C and the treatment time is 1-6 hours (see e.g., paragraph [0023]).
Chen does not explicitly teach during the heat treatment, the graphite raw material is in a static state.
However, Fujiwara teaches a method to produce a carbon material comprising graphite suitable as a negative electrode material for a lithium ion battery (see e.g., Abstract). Fujiwara teaches the method comprises a heat treatment step carried out in a stationary state (“during the heat treatment, the graphite raw material is in a static state”) in order to prevent the pitch from readily adhering to the entire surface of particles of the graphite powder as it becomes difficult to preferentially coat the edge planes of the graphite particles, and, as a result, the amount of coated pitch required for prevention of decomposition of an electrolytic solution increases, and compressibility of the coated graphite powder and accordingly battery properties worsen (see e.g., paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the surface oxidation treatment of Chen to be carried out in a stationary state, as taught by Fujiwara, in order to prevent the compressibility of the coated graphite powder and accordingly battery properties from worsening (see e.g., paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Chen teaches the carbonized material in the surface oxidation treatment is placed in a kiln and oxidized by introducing air and nitrogen, wherein the oxidation temperature is 500-800°C and the treatment time is 1-6 hours (“the temperature for the heat treatment is 500-900°C and a time for the heat treatment is 30-180 min”) (see e.g., paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Chen teaches the graphite precursor raw material has an average particle size D50 of 4-8 µm (“a particle size Dv50 of the graphite raw material is 6-15 μm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the average particle size of 4-8 µm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 4, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 3, as previously described.
Chen teaches the method comprising a step of raw material crushing and shaping, wherein the graphite precursor raw material is crushed and shaped to obtain a fine powder material with an average particle size D50 of 4-8 µm (“crushing a solid carbon source to obtain a granular solid carbon source; shaping the granular solid carbon source to obtain a shaped particle”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]) and a graphitization step, wherein the material after crushing and shaping is subjected to graphitization treatment (“graphitizing the shaped particle to obtain the artificial graphite raw material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 4, as previously described.
Chen teaches the graphite precursor raw material has an average particle size D50 of 4-8 µm (“the particle size Dv50 of the granular solid carbon source is 5-15 μm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]). Chen teaches the graphite precursor raw material is petroleum coke or needle coke (“the solid carbon source comprises at least one of a petroleum coke and a needle coke”) (see e.g., paragraph [0016]), and the graphitization treatment temperature is 2700-3200°C (“the graphitization is carried out at a temperature of 2,800-3,200°C”) (see e.g., paragraph [0017]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the average particle size of 4-8 µm and the graphitization treatment temperature of 2700-3200°C overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 6, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Chen teaches the method includes a step of liquid phase coating granulation, wherein the material, binder, and solvent are evenly mixed at room temperature, and then carbonized after fusion (“mixing a carbon source binder and the shaped particle, followed by granulating and shaping”) (see e.g., paragraph [0014]), wherein it is fused in a fusion machine and then placed in a carbonization furnace for carbonization treatment (see e.g., paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches an artificial graphite, characterized in that the artificial graphite is an artificial graphite prepared by a preparation method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Chen teaches the particle size D50 of the graphite material is 12-20 µm (“a particle size Dv50 of the artificial graphite is 6-15 μm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0026]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the average particle size of 12-20 µm and the graphitization treatment temperature of 2700-3200°C overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 14, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches a negative electrode material, characterized by comprising an artificial graphite, wherein the artificial graphite is an artificial graphite according to claim 7 (see e.g., Chen paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches a negative electrode material, characterized by comprising an artificial graphite, wherein the artificial graphite is an artificial graphite according to claim 7 or a negative electrode material according to claim 14 (see e.g., Chen paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 15, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches a battery, characterized by comprising a negative electrode according to claim 15 (see e.g., Chen paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 17, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 16, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches a power consuming device, characterized in that the power consuming device comprises a battery according to claim 16, and the battery is configured to supply electric energy (see e.g., Chen paragraph [0002]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109437184) in view of Fujiwara et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20100035149 A), and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2021108981 A1, citations from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 20220123307 A1), hereinafter referred to as Li, and Zhou et al. (CN 110085863 A), hereinafter referred to as Zhou.
Regarding claim 8, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, does not explicitly teach a compacted density and a rebound rate of the artificial graphite satisfy the following relationship: 0.08 cm3/g ≤ η/P5k ≤ 0.15 cm3/g, and η = (Lpressure releasing - Lpressure maintaining)/Lpressure maintaining, wherein the P5k is a compacted density of a powder of the artificial graphite under a pressure of 5,000 kg, in g/cm3; the Lpressure maintaining is a thickness of the powder of the artificial graphite when being maintained at the pressure of 5,000 kg; and the Lpressure releasing is the thickness of the powder of the artificial graphite after the pressure is released after the pressure of 5,000 kg is applied.
However, Li teaches an artificial graphite for an anode of a secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract). Li teaches the artificial graphite has a compaction density under a pressure of 2000 kg is from 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 (see e.g., paragraph [0072]). Li teaches a higher compaction density of the artificial graphite will produce a battery with a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0073]); therefore, it would have been obvious to have a compaction density of at least 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 at a higher pressure of 5000 kg as recited in the claim limitation as the compaction density will increase until it plateaus as the pressure increases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the artificial graphite produced by the method of Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, to have a compaction density of at least 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3, as taught by Li, in order to produce a battery with a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0073]).
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara and Li, does not explicitly teach a value of η = (Lpressure releasing - Lpressure maintaining)/Lpressure maintaining, wherein the Lpressure maintaining is a thickness of the powder of the artificial graphite when being maintained at the pressure of 5,000 kg; and the Lpressure releasing is the thickness of the powder of the artificial graphite after the pressure is released after the pressure of 5,000 kg is applied.
However, Zhou teaches graphite anode material for a battery (see e.g., paragraph [0007]). Zhou teaches the graphite anode material has a high electrode compaction density and low full-charge rebound rate in order to produce an anode material with materials widely available, have low costs (see e.g., paragraph [0030]), and have improved charge-discharge cycle performance (see e.g., paragraph [0032]). Zhou teaches the graphite anode material has rebound rates of 24% and 25% (see e.g., Table 1, Examples 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the artificial graphite produced by the method of Chen, as modified by Fujiwara and Li, to have rebound rates of 24% and 25%, as taught by Zhou, in order to produce an anode material with materials widely available, have low costs (see e.g., paragraph [0030]), and have improved charge-discharge cycle performance (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, the value of η/P5k as taught by Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, Li, and Zhou, would be 0.13 and 0.14 when the compaction density if 1.85 g/cm3, meeting the claim limitation of 0.08 cm3/g ≤ η/P5k ≤ 0.15 cm3/g.
Regarding claim 9, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, does not explicitly teach the artificial graphite characterized in that the η/P5k is 0.10 cm3/g ≤ η/P5k ≤ 0.13 cm3/g.
However, Li teaches an artificial graphite for an anode of a secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract). Li teaches the artificial graphite has a compaction density under a pressure of 2000 kg is from 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 (see e.g., paragraph [0072]). Li teaches a higher compaction density of the artificial graphite will produce a battery with a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0073]); therefore, it would have been obvious to have a compaction density of at least 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 at a higher pressure of 5000 kg as recited in the claim limitation as the compaction density will increase until it plateaus as the pressure increases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the artificial graphite produced by the method of Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, to have a compaction density of at least 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3, as taught by Li, in order to produce a battery with a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0073]).
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara and Li, does not explicitly teach a value of η.
However, Zhou teaches graphite anode material for a battery (see e.g., paragraph [0007]). Zhou teaches the graphite anode material has a high electrode compaction density and low full-charge rebound rate in order to produce an anode material with materials widely available, have low costs (see e.g., paragraph [0030]), and have improved charge-discharge cycle performance (see e.g., paragraph [0032]). Zhou teaches the graphite anode material has rebound rates of 24% and 25% (see e.g., Table 1, Examples 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the artificial graphite produced by the method of Chen, as modified by Fujiwara and Li, to have rebound rates of 24% and 25%, as taught by Zhou, in order to produce an anode material with materials widely available, have low costs (see e.g., paragraph [0030]), and have improved charge-discharge cycle performance (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, the value of η/P5k as taught by Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, Li, and Zhou, would be 0.13 when the compaction density if 1.85 g/cm3, meeting the claim limitation of η/P5k is 0.10 cm3/g ≤ η/P5k ≤ 0.13 cm3/g.
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 109437184) in view of Fujiwara et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20100035149 A), and further in view of Li et al. (WO 2021108981 A1, citations from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 20220123307 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, does not explicitly teach the artificial graphite characterized in that the P5k is 1.83-2.08 g/cm3; and/or the η is 15.0%-32%.
However, Li teaches an artificial graphite for an anode of a secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract). Li teaches the artificial graphite has a compaction density under a pressure of 2000 kg is from 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 (see e.g., paragraph [0072]). Li teaches a higher compaction density of the artificial graphite will produce a battery with a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0073]); therefore, it would have been obvious to have a compaction density of at least 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 at a higher pressure of 5000 kg (“characterized in that the P5k is 1.83-2.08 g/cm3”) as recited in the claim limitation as the compaction density will increase until it plateaus as the pressure increases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the artificial graphite produced by the method of Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, to have a compaction density of at least 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3, as taught by Li, in order to produce a battery with a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0073]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the compaction density of 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 11, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, does not explicitly teach the artificial graphite characterized in that the P5k is 1.85-2.05 g/cm3.
However, Li teaches an artificial graphite for an anode of a secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract). Li teaches the artificial graphite has a compaction density under a pressure of 2000 kg is from 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 (see e.g., paragraph [0072]). Li teaches a higher compaction density of the artificial graphite will produce a battery with a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0073]); therefore, it would have been obvious to have a compaction density of at least 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 at a higher pressure of 5000 kg (“characterized in that the P5k is 1.85-2.05 g/cm3”) as recited in the claim limitation as the compaction density will increase until it plateaus as the pressure increases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the artificial graphite produced by the method of Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, to have a compaction density of at least 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3, as taught by Li, in order to produce a battery with a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0073]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the compaction density of 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3 overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 13, Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, does not explicitly teach characterized in that the artificial graphite further has at least one of the following properties: the specific surface area of the artificial graphite is 1.7- 2.2 m2/g; and/or the OI value of the artificial graphite is 5-10; and/or the resistivity of the powder of the artificial graphite under the pressure of 8 Mpa is 0.01 Ω.cm-0.042 Ω.cm; and/or the tap density of the artificial graphite is 0.85-1.16 g/cm3; and/or the capacity per gram of the artificial graphite is 345-360 mAh/g.
However, Li teaches an artificial graphite for an anode of a secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract) .Li teaches the specific surface area of the artificial graphite is 0.8 m2/g to 2.0 m2/g (“the specific surface area of the artificial graphite is 1.7- 2.2 m2/g”) (see e.g., paragraph [0063]) in order to reduce the side reactions of the electrolyte of the surface of the artificial graphite and reduce the gas production, thereby reducing the volume expansion of the secondary battery during the cycle (see e.g., paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the artificial graphite produced by the method of Chen, as modified by Fujiwara, to have a specific surface area of 0.8 m2/g to 2.0 m2/g, as taught by Li, in order to reduce the side reactions of the electrolyte of the surface of the artificial graphite and reduce the gas production, thereby reducing the volume expansion of the secondary battery during the cycle (see e.g., paragraph [0064]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the specific surface area of 0.8 m2/g to 2.0 m2/g overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fu et al. (CN 108199043 A) teaches a method for preparing an artificial graphite anode material for high-rate lithium-ion batteries (“a method for preparing an artificial graphite”) (see e.g., paragraph [0011]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights