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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 21, 2024 and April 22, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant case, the abstract begins “Disclosed are…”, and as such is an implied phrase which should be corrected (see MPEP at 608.01(b)).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has the ranges of the D and G peaks in parentheses, which makes the limitations appear as exemplary. Claims 2-13 are also objected to as depending upon claim 1 Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Katou (US Pub. No. 2020/0052351).
Regarding claims 1-2, Katou teaches a secondary battery 10 (paragraph [0030]), where the positive electrode can include lithium (paragraphs [0066]-[0084]), the battery comprising a negative electrode active material using graphite (paragraph [0119]), where the graphite is preferably crystalline, and the ID/IG value of the graphite is preferably equal to or more than 0.01, and equal to or less than 0.08 (paragraph [0134]), such a range either discloses the range of claims 1 and/or 2 with sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation because the ranges have the same disclosed lower endpoint, very similar upper endpoints, and overlap for more than 50% of the broader range, or teaches a range completely overlapping the ranges of claims 1 and 2. “When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with ‘sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute.’” MPEP at 2131.03. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Accordingly, Katou either anticipates the ranges of claims 1 and 2, or else it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ID/IG range within the claimed ranges of less than about 0.05 (claim 1), and less than about 0.05 and about 0.01 or more (claim 2), because Katou teaches a range overlapping these ranges (see Katou at paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 3, Katou teaches that the graphite can be artificial graphite or natural graphite (paragraph [0141]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (CN 1412871; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 4-9, the examiner notes that the claim limitations of claims 4-9 are product-by-process limitations wherein determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP at 2113. Park teaches the use of ethanol (taken to be the claimed ROH of claim 4, where R is a C2 alkyl group of claim 5, and ethanol is specifically enumerated in claim 6) as a solvent for applying a coating to graphite (machine translation at page 7, example 1), and teaches drying a slurry in a furnace (machine translation at page 7, example 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethanol as a solvent and heating the slurry as taught by Park to apply the poorly crystalline carbon material to the graphite of Katou as a known method of applying a coating to graphite with predictable results.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 114497461, see updated machine translation) (of record).
Regarding claims 10-12, Katou teaches a negative active material as claimed in claim 1 as is set forth above, a binding agent which can be styrene-butadiene rubber (taken to be the aqueous binder of claim 10 and a listed binder of claim 12) (paragraph [0144]). Katou does not specifically disclose a cellulose-based compound. In a similar negative active material, Wang teaches the use of a thickening agent CMC (the claimed caboxymethyl cellulose of claim 11) (machine translation at page 3, fourth paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use CMC as taught by Wang in the negative active material of Katou in order to prevent particle settling of active material and/or maintain uniform dispersion so that the electrode coating has consistent thickness and density.
Regarding claim 13, Katou teaches a negative electrode as in claim 10 as is set forth above, a positive electrode, and an ion conductor that is held between the positive and negative electrodes (claimed electrolyte) (paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 17, 2026
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights