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 03/07/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/07.2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0006], [0023], [00144] recite a model of BJH Desortation. It is assumed the Paragraphs are referring to the BJH (Barrett-Joyner-Halenda) model for desorption.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…by using a model of BJH Desortation cumulative volume of pores”. The claim should read “…BJH Desorption….”. Using the letter O as a variable is confusing as it can be easily mistaken as a value of zero. Claims 2-10 are objected to as dependent claims.
Claim 2 similarly recites “O mL/100g, where 30≤O≤62” and is objected to.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites an oil absorption value of O mL/100g but does not specify a value for O and does not mention which oil is being used to determine the absorption value. The claim further recited a specific surface area S without specifying the surface are and recites a pore Volume V without specifying a concrete Volume. The claim later recites a dimensionless product O*V*S with values larger or equal to 50 and smaller or equal to 391. If values for O, V, S are multiplied according to the claimed relation this would result in a non-dimensionless figure with the unit 10 -8 m8/kg3. If for example the median values for the properties disclosed in claims 2-4 are inserted into the equation the result is: 203.32 * 10 -8 m8/kg3. This value would not satisfy the claimed equation. The claim is therefore rejected as indefinite. Claims 2-10 are rejected as dependent claims of claim 1. Claims 2-10 are rejected as dependent claims.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claims recite a unit and disclose the respective variables including units and respective ranges. As recited in the claims, it appears that the boundary values are dimensionless figures (for example claim 1 recites: “O mL/100g, where 30≤O≤62”). The claim is therefore rejected as being indefinite. Claims 5-10 are rejected as dependent claims.
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- 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (US20180012146 A1; “Yamada” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses an anode material (composite carbon material for a non - aqueous secondary battery is provided, abstract & It has been known that carbon materials such as graphite are used as a negative electrode active material in the lithium ion secondary battery [0004]), comprising graphite, an interior and/or a surface of the graphite has pores (a composite carbon material which contains a bulk mesophase artificial graphite particle and graphite particle [0042]), the anode material has an oil absorption value of O mL/100g (DBP Oil Adsorption[0331]), a pore volume of V cm3/kg, a specific surface area of S m2/g, and a powder porosity of Φ%, where 50O*V*S<391, and 40<Φ<58, and the pore volume is tested by ASAP2460 device from American Micromeritics, and calculated in a pore size range of 17Å to 3000Å (102Å to 106 Å, [0012]) by using a model of BJH Desortation cumulative volume of pores.
Yamada fails to disclose directly disclose the powder porosity 40<Φ<58. However, Yamada discloses the tap density [0291] and bulk density [0294] and discloses that the optimization of these properties causes a reduction of stripping, an improvement of rolling properties and makes the production easier. Yamada further teaches that the proper density values improve the batterie’s high - speed charging and discharging characteristics [0291]. Yamada further discloses that the proper bulk density ensures that the electrolytic solution can smoothly migrate which leads to the battery exhibiting good charging and discharging load characteristics, low - temperature input and output characteristics [0295]. While not explicitly disclosing the powder porosity, it is assumed that the anode material that exhibits these improved qualities because of optimized density values, influence the porosity and therefore the material would also exhibit a powder porosity within the disclosed range. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)
Regarding claim 2, Yamada discloses an anode material according to claim 1 and further discloses the material having an oil adsorption value within the range of 30 mL/100g <O<62 mL/100g (particularly preferably 60 ml / 100 g or less and more preferably 40 ml / 100 g or greater [0332].
Regarding claim 3, Yamada discloses an anode material according to claim 1 and further discloses that the pore volume of the anode material is within a range of 1.812 cm3/kg <V<5.012 cm3/kg. (The integrated pore volume is typically 0.001 mL/g = 1 cm3/kg or greater [0276].) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art". A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (A1; “Yamada” hereinafter) as applied to claims 1-3 and further in view of Jin et al (CN-115939377-A; “Jin hereinafter”).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada discloses an anode material according to claim 1 and further discloses that the specific surface area of the anode material is S m2/g, where 0.872<S<1.781 (a specific surface area of the artificial graphite is typically in a range of 0.5 m2/g or greater and preferably 4m2/g or less. [0510]).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art". In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) MPEP section 2144.05(I).
Additionally, Jin discloses that the specific surface area (BET) for graphite ranges from 0.9 to 1.5, and the unit is m2/g (page 2, line 58). Yamada and Jin are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely carbon-based anode materials. In seeking slightly smaller particles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention, to adjust the preparation methods disclosed by Yamada to the disclosure of Jin as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada discloses the anode material according to claim 1 and further discloses that a particle size of the anode material satisfies a following relational expression: 12µm<D50<20µm (an average particle size is particularly preferably 8 to 30 um [0494]). The disclosed range per the teachings of Yamada slightly encompasses the claimed range. The particle sizes are mathematically very close, and it is therefore assumed that the difference between the claimed ranges is negligible, the properties are expected to be the same without any showing of unexpected results or criticality. Additionally, Jin discloses that the average particle size D50 of the graphite is in the range of 10 μ m - 20 μ m (page 11, line 4).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada discloses the anode material according to claim 1 and discloses that the anode material further comprises amorphous carbon, and that the amorphous carbon is located on the surface of the graphite and/or dispersed between graphite particles (coated with amorphous carbon [0693]).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada discloses the anode material according to claim 6 and further discloses that the pores comprise at least one of micro-pores and meso-pores (a pore diameter in a range of 0.01 µm to 1 µm [0276]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada discloses the anode material according to claim 1 and further discloses that the anode material has a crystal plane spacing d002 of a plane (002) of a graphite crystal determined by X-ray diffraction, where 3.358Å< d002<3.365 Å, (is preferably 0.36 nm (3.6Å) or less, more preferably 0.345 nm (3.45 Å) or less , and still more preferably 0.341 nm (03.41 Å) or less) and a crystal plane stacking thickness Lc obtained by the X-ray diffraction is 400 Å to 450 Å (, a crystal lite size Lc in a c - axis direction , which is measured by X - ray diffraction , is preferably 10 nm (100Å) or greater , and more preferably 20 (200Å) nm or greater). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art". In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) MPEP section 2144.05(I) and a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada discloses the anode material according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the ratio of integrated intensities I004/I110. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties with regards to this specific ratio are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, as shown by the previous claims and by the similar production method disclosed in the specification, the claim is anticipated by the prior art reference. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada discloses a battery, comprising an anode material according to claim 1. (A composite carbon material for a non - aqueous secondary battery is provided (abstract) and in addition, the object E is to provide a negative electrode material capable of obtaining a non-aqueous secondary battery having high capacity and excel lent low - temperature output characteristics by the manufacturing method, and to provide a high - performance non aqueous secondary battery as a result thereof [0041]).
Conclusion
He et al. (CN112661149A) – discloses a preparation method of a graphite negative electrode material, a negative electrode material and a lithium ion battery – incl. a pore forming step.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
