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 February 27, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Tables 1 and 2, presented on specification pages 21-24, are objected to for single words and numbers being split across multiple lines within a single cell. One example this is the first element of the first row of table 1, which reads “Sa”, ”mpl”, and “e”.
The specification is objected to due to the use of the term “Desortation” in paragraphs 0007, 0057, and 0170, where the model referred to is a “desorption” model.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains the phrase “BJH Desortation cumulative volume of pores model”. This phrase is objected due to the use of the word “Desortation”, where the BHJ modes is a “Desorption of cumulative pores model.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 1 is indefinite due to the limitation “wherein 400 ≤ O*V*S ≤ 1500”. Here, as established in the claim, O has units of mL/100g, V has units of cm3/kg, and S has units of m2/g, while the claim presents the product O*V*S as being unitless. Here, the units of O, V, and S do not cancel out to provide a unitless result, instead resulting in (mL*cm3*m2)/(100g*kg*g). Converting the top units to meters (1 ml = 10-6 m3, and 1 cm3 = 10-6 m3), and the bottom units to kg (100g = 0.1 kg, and 1g = 0.001 kg), the final units of O*V*S are 1/108 m8/kg3, rather than a dimensionless value. As it is not possible for these units to yield a dimensionless value, this limitation is therefore indefinite.
Claim 2 is indefinite, as claim 2 introduces “an oil absorption value”, where claim 1 has previously introduced an “oil absorption value”. Here, it is not clear based on the claim if the oil absorption value of claim 2 is the same value as that of claim 1, or if it is to be considered separately.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the phrase “43 ≤ O ≤ 60”, where this expression presents O as being a dimensionless value, where O has previously been established as having units of ml/100g.
Claim 3 is indefinite, as claim 4 introduces “a pore volume”, where claim 1 has previously introduced “a pore volume”. Here, it is not clear based on the claim if the pore volume of claim 3 is the same value as that of claim 1, or if it is to be considered separately.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the phrase “5 ≤ V ≤ 8”, where this expression presents V as being a dimensionless value, where V has previously been established as having units of cm3/kg.
Claim 4 is indefinite, as claim 4 introduces “a specific surface area”, where claim 1 has previously introduced “a specific surface area”. Here, it is not clear based on the claim if the specific surface area of claim 4 is the same value as that of claim 1, or if it is to be considered separately.
Claim 4 is indefinite for the phrase “1.78 ≤ S ≤ 3.0”, where this expression presents S as being a dimensionless value, where S has previously been established as having units of m2/g.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "following relationship equation" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the following features" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "micro-pore and meso-pore" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7, 8 and 10 are indefinite as a result of their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 2014067680 A), in further view of Sato (US 20220013779 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada discloses an anode material (Abstract, “To provide a negative electrode for manufacturing a nonaqueous secondary battery”) comprising artificial graphite (Paragraph 0142, “Examples thereof include natural graphite, artificial graphite”), and there are pores inside and/or on a surface of the artificial graphite (Paragraph 0087, “The pore volume Vi of the graphite particles”).
Additionally, the anode material has an oil absorption value of 50 ml/100g or more and 76 ml/100g or less (Paragraph 0050, “The DBP oil absorption of the graphite particles of the present invention is 0.38 mL / g or more, preferably 0.43 mL / g or more, more preferably 0.45 mL / g or more, and further preferably 0.50 mL / g or more. Moreover, it is 0.85 mL / g or less, Preferably it is 0.80 mL / g or less, More preferably, it is 0.76 mL / g or less.”), a pore volume of 100 cm3/kg to 250 cm3/kg (Paragraph 0087, “The pore volume Vi of the graphite particles of the present invention is a value measured using a mercury intrusion method (mercury porosimetry), and is usually 0.1 mL / g or more, preferably 0.13 mL / g or more, more preferably 0.14 mL / g or more, usually 0.3 mL / g or less, preferably 0.28 mL / g or less, more preferably 0.25 mL / g or less.”), and a specific surface area of 1.5 m2/g to 5 m2/g (Paragraph 0055, “The specific surface area of the graphite particles of the present invention is a value of the specific surface area measured using the BET method, and is 0.5 m2/g or more, preferably 1.0 m2/g or more, more preferably 1 .3 m2/g or more, particularly preferably at 1.5 m2/g or more,, 10 m2/g or less, preferably 7.5 m2/g or less, more preferably 6 m2/g or less, particularly preferably 5 m2/g or less.”).
Here, the product O*V*S is 76 (Oil adsorption) multiplied by 100 (Pore volume), multiplied by 1.5 (Specific surface area), where the product is 11400. This product falls outside the range of the instant claim, which is 400 to 1500. Therefore we look to Sato, who discloses a negative electrode material comprising graphite, having a pore volume of 0.1 ml/g or less (Abstract, “A negative electrode material for a nonaqueous secondary battery which contains a graphite that contains an amorphous carbonaceous material in at least a part of the surface; has a cumulative pore volume of 0.100 mL/g or less”).
Here, Sato discloses a pore volume range that is preferably 0.03 ml/g or less and preferably 0.005 ml/g or greater (Paragraph 0088, “most preferably 0.030 mL/g or less, but preferably 0.001 mL/g or greater, more preferably 0.002 mL/g or greater, still more preferably 0.005 mL/g or greater”), where these values are equivalent to 30 cm3/kg or less and 5 cm3/kg or more. Sato further discloses that this range of pore volume allows for Li ions to move smoothly within an electrode during charging and discharging, and that rapid charge-discharge characteristics and low-temperature input-output characteristics are less likely to be deteriorated (Paragraph 0088, “When the cumulative pore volume is outside of this range, since Li ions cannot move smoothly inside an electrode during charging and discharging, the rapid charge-discharge characteristics and the low-temperature input-output characteristics tend to be deteriorated.”). Further, based on this disclosure, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select the bottom of the range disclosed by Sato, so as to further gain benefit of smooth movement of Li ions, thereby making obvious a pore volume range of 5 cm3/kg.
Accordingly, where V is 5, then O*V*S is 76*5*1.5, which is 570, which falls within the range of 400 to 1500 as is required by the instant claim.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the pore volume is obtained by calculation in a pore size range of 17 angstroms to 3000 angstroms using a BJH Desorption cumulative volume of pores model, by testing by ASAP2460 equipment of American Micrometrics, this limitation represents a product by process limitation. For product by process limitations, the patentability does not depend on the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps, as per MPEP section 2113(I): “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.)”).
The structure implied by the steps of the instant limitation is that the calculation method and testing method determines a pore volume within the range of the instant claim, which is from 17 angstroms to 3000 angstroms. Here, where Sato discloses a pore size range of 0.1 to 1 microns (Abstract, “in a pore size range of 0.01 μm to 1 μm”), this represents a pore size calculation range of 100 angstroms to 10,000 angstroms. Accordingly, where this range encompasses the range of the process step, it therefore includes smaller ranges within it for measurement, comprising a 100 angstrom to 3000 angstrom range, in addition to addition measurement range, thereby reading upon the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, where Yamada discloses an oil absorption value of 50 ml/100g to 76 ml/100g, which overlaps with the claimed oil absorption values, which is from 43 ml/100g to 60 ml/100g, a prima facie case of obvious exists in view of Yamada, as discussed in MPEP section 2144.05(I): “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Sato makes obvious a pore volume of 5 cm3/kg.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Yamada discloses an anode material specific surface area of 1.5 m2/g to 5 m2/g (Paragraph 0055, “The specific surface area of the graphite particles of the present invention is a value of the specific surface area measured using the BET method, and is 0.5 m2/g or more, preferably 1.0 m2/g or more, more preferably 1 .3 m2/g or more, particularly preferably at 1.5 m2/g or more,, 10 m2/g or less, preferably 7.5 m2/g or less, more preferably 6 m2/g or less, particularly preferably 5 m2/g or less.”). Here, where this range of 1.5-5 encompasses the range of the instant claim, which is 1.78-3.0, a prima facie case of obvious exists in view of Yamada, as discussed in MPEP section 2144.05(I): “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Yamada discloses that their D90 particle size is preferably 20 microns (Paragraph 0123, “Further, d90 is usually 100 μm or less, preferably 60 μm or less, more preferably 50 μm or less, further preferably 40 μm or less, particularly preferably 30 μm or less, most preferably 25 μm or less, usually 10 μm or more, preferably 15 μm or more, more preferably 20 μm.”), and that their D10 particle size is preferably 8 microns or less (Paragraph 0124, “d10 is usually 1 μm or more, preferably 3 μm or more, more preferably 5 μm or more, further preferably 6 μm or more, usually 20 μm or less, preferably 15 μm or less, more preferably 10 μm or less, and even more preferably 8 μm or less.”).
Additionally, Yamada discloses a D50 particle size of 7 microns or more and 30 microns or less (Paragraph 0100, “Particularly preferably, it is 7 μm or more, and is usually 100 μm or less, preferably 50 μm or less, more preferably 40 μm or less, and particularly preferably 30 μm or less.”). Here, where this range of 7-30 overlaps with the range of the instant claim, which is 10-30, a prima facie case of obvious exists in view of Yamada, as discussed in MPEP section 2144.05(I): “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”).
Additionally, where D90 is 20, D10 is 8, and D50 is 7-30, then (D90-D10)/D50 ranges from 12/7 to 12/30, or 1.7 to 0.4. Here, this range overlaps with the range of required by the instant claim for (D90-D10)/D50, which is 0.9 microns to 1.8 microns. Here, where this range of 0.4-1.7 overlaps with the range of the instant claim, which is 0.9-1.8, a prima facie case of obvious exists in view of Yamada, as discussed in MPEP section 2144.05(I): “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yamada discloses structure where the anode material further comprises amorphous carbon (Paragraph 0133, “[0133] The graphite particles of the present invention are not particularly limited, but are preferably multi-layered graphite particles coated with a carbonaceous material, and more preferably multi-layered graphite particles coated with amorphous carbon or a graphite material.”).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yamada discloses structure where a peak intensity of peak ID at 1360 cm-1 is determined by Raman spectroscopy (Paragraph 0061, “and measuring the intensity IB of a peak PB in the vicinity of 1360 cm-1”), and a peak intensity IG at 1580 cm-1 of the anode material is determined by Raman spectroscopy (Paragraph 0061, “The resulting Raman spectrum, the intensity IA of the peak PA in the vicinity of 1580 cm-1,”). Here, Yamada discloses that the peak intensity ratio IG/ID is a Raman R value (Paragraph 0061, “(R = IB / IA) Is calculated. The Raman R value calculated by the measurement is defined as the Raman R value of the graphite particles of the present invention.”), which has a value of 0.03 or more, and 0.3 or less (Paragraph 0059, “The Raman R value of the graphite particles of the present invention is a value measured using an argon ion laser Raman spectrum method, and is 0.03 or more, preferably 0.05 or more, more preferably 0.07 or more, It is 0.6 or less, preferably 0.4 or less, more preferably 0.35 or less, and particularly preferably 0.3 or less.”). Here, where the range of Yamada overlaps with the range of the instant claim, 0.03 to 0.3 overlapping with the claimed range of 0.3 to 0.1, a prima facie case of obvious exists in view of Yamada, as discussed in MPEP section 2144.05(I): “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yamada discloses structure where the anode material comprises artificial graphite (Paragraph 0142, “artificial graphite,”) in the form of particles which are either primary particles or secondary particles (Paragraph 0143, “When the spheroid shape, the lump shape, and the polygonal shape are graphite particles, the particle filling property can be improved, which is preferable.”)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yamada discloses structure where their pores comprise at least one the group which includes micro-pore and meso-pore, through disclosing micro-pores (Paragraph 0226, “Even when the electrode density is high and the total pore volume is small, the micropores that can move the electrolyte uniformly in the electrode can be maintained without being crushed.”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Yamada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yamada discloses a battery comprising the anode material according to claim 1 (Abstract, “To provide a negative electrode for manufacturing a nonaqueous secondary battery”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725