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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim says “the pores has,” which is a subject-verb disagreement. Appropriate correction is required. Please change the language to “the pores have.”
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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim states, “by testing by ASAP2460 equipment of American Micromeritics.” ASAP appears to be a trademark owned by Micromeritics Instrument Corporation. Please see MPEP § 2173.05(u): If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The examiner will interpret Claim 1 as, “An anode material, comprising artificial graphite, and there are pores inside and/or on surface of the artificial graphite, and the anode material has a pore volume of V cm3/kg, a true density of D g/cm3, and a specific surface area of S m2/g, wherein 4.0 ≤ V*S/D ≤ 10, and the pore volume is obtained by calculation in a pore size range of 17 Å to 3000 Å using a BJH Desortation cumulative volume of pores model.”
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 7-10, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of their dependence on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of its dependence on Claim 1 via Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness by virtue of its dependence on Claim 1. Additionally, the claim states, “interplanar spacing d002 of (002) plane determined by X-ray diffraction, wherein 3.355 Å )p002 ≤ 3.365 Å.” The “)” seems most likely a typographical error, and “p002” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. However, the Specification says, “interplanar spacing d002 of (002) plane determined by X-ray diffraction, where 3.355Å ≤ d002 ≤ 3.365Å.”
The examiner will interpret Claim 6 as, “The anode material of claim 1, wherein the anode material has an interplanar spacing d002 of (002) plane determined by X-ray diffraction, wherein 3.355Å ≤ d002 ≤ 3.365Å.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomohiro et al. (JP-2021061230-A), hereafter referred to simply as Tomohiro. Blue Powder Metallurgy (“Density of Graphite”) is provided as evidence, hereafter referred to simply as Blue Powder Metallurgy.
Regarding Claim 1, Tomohiro teaches an anode material, comprising artificial graphite (“A negative electrode material for a non-aqueous secondary battery that contains graphite,” paragraph 8; “The type of graphite is not particularly limited, as long as it is capable of intercalating and releasing lithium ions; it may be natural graphite or artificial graphite,” paragraph 61), and there are pores inside and/or on surface of the artificial graphite (“has a cumulative pore volume of 0.100 mL/g or less in the range of pore diameter from 0.01 μm to 1 μm,” paragraph 8),
and the anode material has a pore volume of V cm3/kg [“pore volume in the range of 0.01 μm to 1 μm is a value measured using the mercury intrusion method (mercury porosimetry), and is 0.100 mL/g or less,” paragraph 28; “on the other hand, preferably 0.001 mL/g or more,” paragraph 28],
a true density of D g/cm3 (“The theoretical density of graphite is 2.26 g/cm3,” first sentence of Blue Powder Metallurgy; Tomohiro does not specify a true density range of its disclosed graphite, so theoretical density of graphite will be used as an example value instead),
and a specific surface area of S m2/g [“specific surface area (SA) by the BET method preferably of 0.5 m2/g or more,” paragraph 49; “on the other hand, preferably of 10.0 m2/g or less,” paragraph 49],
wherein 4.0 ≤ V*S/D ≤ 10. (Using example V and S values contained in the disclosed ranges from Tomohiro for demonstration purposes, along with the theoretical density of graphite D evidenced by Blue Powder Metallurgy: For V = 10 mL/kg, S = 2 m2/g, D = 2.26 g/cm³, V*S/D = 8.85), and
the pore volume is obtained by calculation in a pore size range of 17A to 3000A using a BJH Desortation cumulative volume of pores model. (Tomohiro’s disclosed anode material meets the structural limitations above and would be capable of having the same result when tested in the claimed manner.)
Regarding Claim 2, Tomohiro further teaches that the anode material satisfies at least one of the following features:
(1) the anode material has a particle size D50 of 10 µm to 30 µm [“The negative electrode material according to one embodiment of the present invention has a volume-based average particle diameter (also referred to as "average particle diameter d50”),” paragraph 57; “the particle is preferably 1 μm or more, more preferably 3 μm or more, even more preferably 4 μm or more, and particularly preferably 5 μm or more,” paragraph 57; “the particle size is preferably 50 μm or less, more preferably 40 μm or less, even more preferably 30 μm or less,” paragraph 57].
Regarding Claim 3, Tomohiro further teaches the anode material satisfies at least one of the following features:
(1) the anode material has a pore volume of V cm3/kg, wherein 5 < V <8 [“pore volume in the range of 0.01 μm to 1 μm is a value measured using the mercury intrusion method (mercury porosimetry), and is 0.100 mL/g or less,” paragraph 28; “on the other hand, preferably 0.001 mL/g or more,” paragraph 28];
(2) the anode material has a specific surface area of S m2/g, wherein 1.78 < S <3.0 [“specific surface area (SA) by the BET method preferably of 0.5 m2/g or more,” paragraph 49; “on the other hand, preferably of 10.0 m2/g or less,” paragraph 49].
Regarding Claim 4, Tomohiro further teaches that the pore comprises at least one of micro-pore and meso-pore (“range of pore diameter from 0.01 μm to 1 μm,” paragraph 28).
Regarding Claim 6, Tomohiro further teaches that the anode material has an interplanar spacing d002 of (002) plane determined by X-ray diffraction, wherein 3.355Å ≤ d002 ≤ 3.365Å [“the interplanar spacing (d002) of the (002) plane, determined by X-ray wide-angle diffraction according to the JSPS method, is preferably 0.340 nm or less,” paragraph 53; “The d002 value is more preferably 0.338 nm or less, and even more preferably 0.337 nm or less,” paragraph 53].
Regarding Claim 8, Tomohiro further teaches that the artificial graphite comprises an artificial graphite primary particle and/or an artificial graphite secondary particle [“the shape of the graphite is preferably spheroidal graphite (spheroidized graphite),” paragraph 63; “spheroidized graphite particles can be produced by applying a spheroidization treatment using known techniques,” paragraph 63].
Regarding Claim 9, Tomohiro further teaches that the anode material satisfies at least one of the following features:
(1) the anode material further comprises an amorphous carbon (“contains graphite having amorphous carbonaceous material on at least a portion of its surface,” paragraph 8); and
(2) the anode material further comprises an amorphous carbon, and a mass ratio of the amorphous carbon in the anode material is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% (“the amount of amorphous carbon precursors relative to graphite, as residual carbon (amorphous carbon), is usually 0.01% or more, preferably 0.1% or more, more preferably 0.5% or more, even more preferably 1% or more, particularly preferably 2% or more, and most preferably 3% or more,” paragraph 80).
Regarding Claim 10, Tomohiro further teaches a battery comprising the anode material according to claim 1 (“the object of the present invention is to provide a negative electrode material for a non-aqueous secondary battery,” paragraph 6).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohiro in view of Iwao et al. (JP 6707935 B2), hereafter referred to simply as Iwao.
Regarding Claim 5, although Tomohiro teaches a “range of pore diameter from 0.01 μm to 1 μm,” paragraph 28 (which converts to 100-10,000 Å), Tomohiro does not specifically teach that the pores have an average pore size of 50 Å to 200 Å. However, Iwao teaches an anode material of artificial graphite where the pores have an average pore size of 50 Å to 200 Å [“the mode pore diameter (PD) in the range of 0.01 μm to 1 μm,” paragraph 95]. Iwao teaches the motivation here is that ““When the mode pore size (PD) in the range of 0.01 μm to 1 μm falls outside this range, the electrolyte cannot efficiently penetrate the voids within the particles, and the Li ion insertion and deinsertion sites within the particles cannot be efficiently utilized. As a result, low-temperature input/output characteristics and cycle characteristics tend to deteriorate,” paragraph 95.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the graphite disclosed in Tomohiro such that the average pore size is within the range taught by Iwao in order to allow for more efficient Li ion insertion/de-insertion and thus reduce deterioration of cycling characteristics, as taught by Iwao.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohiro in view of Satow et al. (US 20150318545 A1), hereafter referred to simply as Satow.
Regarding Claim 7, Tomohiro does not explicitly teach the artificial graphite has a peak intensity ratio I002/I110 of (002) plane to (110) plane of 65.0 to 120.0 and a peak intensity ratio I004/I110 of (004) plane to the (110) plane of 3.0 to 6.0 determined by X-ray diffraction. However, Satow teaches negative electrode active material particles with a graphite structure. Satow teaches the graphite structure has a peak intensity ratio I002/I110 of (002) plane to (110) plane of 65.0 to 120.0 (“the ratio I(002)/I(110) of the diffraction intensity I(002) of the (002) plane to the diffraction intensity I(110) of the (110) plane satisfies 60 ≤ I(002)/I(110) ≤ 120 as determined by measuring the negative electrode mixture layer by an X-ray diffraction method,” paragraph 27) and a peak intensity ratio I004/I110 of (004) plane to the (110) plane of 3.0 to 6.0 determined by X-ray diffraction (“the ratio I(110)/I(004) satisfies 0.25 ≤ I(110)/I(004) ≤ 0.45,” paragraph 22; for comparative purposes, inverting the disclosed ratio yields, 2.22 ≤ I(004)/I(110) ≤ 4). For I002/I110, Satow explains the benefit of this ratio range is that it “allows the crystal grains in the negative electrode active material particles to be properly oriented in the negative electrode mixture layer, thereby enabling input characteristics of the negative electrode mixture layer to be enhanced,” paragraph 30. For I004/I110, Satow notes that negative electrode material satisfying the condition stated above can help a battery achieve “high capacity and high input-output characteristics during charge/discharge at high current density under low-temperature circumstances,” paragraph 22.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the graphite disclosed in Tomohiro such that I004/I110 and I002/I110 are within the ranges disclosed by Satow in order to optimize orientation of the crystal grains to enhance input and output characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights