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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The applicant asserts that the numerical values of “oil absorption value”, “pore volume”, and “specific surface area” are dimensionless values which do not contain any units. This is not persuasive based on the plain text of the claims, which recite these numerical values as having units: “O mL/100g, wherein 43≤0≤60, a pore volume of V cm3/kg, wherein 5≤V≤8, and a specific surface area of S m2/g”. Based on the language of the claims, the variables have units, and are not dimensionless parameters which are multiplied by the adjacent unit vectors, as is suggested by the applicant.
The applicant’s amendments in regards to claims 5 and 6 are sufficient to overcome the issues of indefiniteness presented in the previous office action, and the argument is accordingly withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 9 is have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rationale of the applicant’s arguments is unclear, as claim 9 is rejected based on a lack of antecedent basis, not an issue of lack of clarity in regards to the definitions of the terms “micro-pore” and “meso-pore”. A suggested rephrasing of the claim to overcome the rejection on the grounds of indefiniteness is “wherein the pores comprise at least one of a micro-pore and a meso-pore.”
The applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that although Yamada describes the specific surface value, DPB oil absorption value, and total pore volume of the anode material, it fails to describe or teach the relationship among the three parameters. The applicant asserts that the values of claim 1 are interrelated, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to make such a relationship definition.
This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. An analysis of the relationship is not required in the prior art for the art to read upon the instant claim. The claims require that values of the parameters are present such that the O*V*S relationship is met. As long as that relationship is met, the claim is read upon. It is not required that the prior art recognize the relationship, but only that the conditions of the relationship be satisfied.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that where Sato describes a pore volume of 0.03 ml/g or less and 0.005 ml/g or greater, these values differ from Yamada’s disclosure of 0.48 ml/g to 0.95 ml/g, where Yamada discusses that when the total pore volume is less than their range, deterioration of cycling characteristics occurs, thereby presenting adverse consequences arising from a pore volume outside their range. This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as Sato presents that their specific values of pore volume overcome the issues presented by Yamada, specifically teaching that their range of pore volumes allow for smooth movement of the lithium ions within the electrode (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.”), thereby counteracting the statement of the precipitation of lithium metal by Yamada. Accordingly, as Sato teaches that these values would not be subject to the adverse consequences of Yamada, there would therefore be a motivation for one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify Yamada in view of Sato as presented in the previous office action of record.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that due to the claimed limitation of 400≤O*V*S≤1500, when one parameter is adjusted the other two parameters would be changed. This has been fully considered but is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that a modification of one value would require a change of other values) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). There is nothing presented in claim 1 that requires that when one value of the O*V*S relationship is changed, the others must be changed. Further, as this relationship is presented within a range, there would be a range of values that any one variable could be with the other values remaining constant. As discussed above, it is not required that this relationship be recognized by prior art, only that the values of O, V, and S, when multiplied, satisfy the relationship.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that their specification presents that pore volume and specific surface area present a technical problem which is solved by the present invention, as well as asserting that Yamada and Sato fail to describe or teach this technical problem. The applicant further asserts that the instant invention solves the technical problem by defining the values of the O*S*V relationship, resulting in a technical effect of improved battery performance, and that these technical effects are not disclosed or rendered obvious by Yamada or Sato. These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Yamada and Sato do not contemplate the specific effects of the claimed invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further, as discussed above, the specific motivations for the parameters are not required for prior art to read upon the claims, only that the specific parameter values are satisfied.
Further, the applicant’s assertion of the technical effects is not sufficient to represent an argument of unexpected results over Yamada and Sato. The applicant does not point to any specific examples as presenting these technical effects, only indicating a broad “improving high rate charge-discharge performance of artificial graphite anode material”. Accordingly, this argument cannot be evaluated as an argument of unexpected results without specific results that are indicated as being unexpected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 2014067680 A, with USPTO SEARCH translation used for citation purposes), 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.”), 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)”).
Additionally, Yamada discloses 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.”).
Additionally, 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)”).
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, which falls within the claimed range of 5 cm3/kg to 8 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights