DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 7-8, 10-14 and 16 are pending, wherein claims 10-11 and 16 are amended. Claims 7-8, 10-14 and 16 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 31, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16, 7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (CN 108539122 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Zhang) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210075015 A1, hereafter Lee) and Lee et al. (US 20200259162 A1, hereafter Lee-II).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches a negative electrode slurry (See, at least, [0072], claim 10), satisfying the following claimed features:
1) consisting of a negative electrode active material ([0072], claim 10), a negative electrode binder ([0072], claim 10), a negative electrode conductive agent (claim 10), a thickener (e.g., “CMC”, “carboxymethyl cellulose”, [0079], claim 10) and a solvent (“water”, [0078], claim 10);
2) the negative electrode active material comprises artificial graphite particles ([0073], claim 10; one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that artificial graphite is composed of artificial graphite particles);
3) the artificial graphite particles have a secondary particle structure wherein two or more primary particles are assembled ([0074], claim 10);
4) Zhang is silent as to the sphericity as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses that a negative electrode active material (e.g., artificial graphite, [0029]) having a sphericity of 0.83 to 0.91 would significantly improve adherence between the current collector and the anode active material layer of the negative electrode ([0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into Zhang such that artificial graphite particles having a sphericity of 0.83 to 0.91 are used in Zhang in order to significantly improve adherence as mentioned above. The sphericity range of 0.75 to 0.81 as claimed in claim 16 is close to that of 0.83 to 0.91. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05. Furthermore, no evidence of record is shown to demonstrate any criticality of the sphericity range as claimed;
5) Zhang as modified is silent as to the negative electrode active material having an average particle diameter as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee-II discloses that an average particle diameter D50 of artificial particles in the range of 10 µm to 30 µm ([0040]-[0042]) would lead to many benefits, such as, excellent output, excellent initial efficiency, and so on ([0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee-II into Zhang such that artificial graphite particles having an average particle diameter D50 of 10 µm to 30 µm are used in Zhang in order to achieve benefits stated above. As a result, the claimed D50 range of 14 µm to 20 µm overlaps or lies insides that of 10 µm to 30 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I); and
6) Zhang as modified is silent as to the claimed specific surface area of the negative electrode active material. However, Lee-II further discloses that the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material affects initial efficiency, output properties and storage stability ([0043], Lee) and therefore is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have optimized the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material of the modified Zhang to arrive at the claimed range of specific surface area, in order to achieve desired initial efficiency, output properties and storage stability.
The negative electrode active material as claimed is further limited to satisfy the following claimed recitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
213
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
141
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above recitation relates to intended-use of the negative electrode active material comprising artificial graphite particles. That is, the electrode active material comprising artificial graphite particles is used to mix with water to form “a sample”, and then the sample is characterized/measured through measuring a torque by operating a torque rheometer. The intended-use recitations do not change the composition or structure of the claimed negative electrode active material slurry. While intended-use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended-use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the negative electrode active material of the negative electrode slurry is capable of performing the intended-use as claimed.
Since the slurry disclosed in Zhang contains the same negative electrode active material (i.e., artificial graphite), the features described in claim 16 about preparing “a sample” and characterizing the “a sample” by measuring a torque value are reasonably expected to be present.
Note also that based on claim languages, “a sample” and “a negative electrode slurry” are different in scope. The only relationship between them is that a component (the negative electrode active material) of the negative electrode slurry, is used in “a sample” to measure a solid content value of the “a sample”. Thus, the claimed “a sample”, as well as characteristics of the claimed “a sample”, do not impact on or limit the scope (composition and structure) of the negative electrode slurry. The claim is claiming a solid content value of the “a sample”, rather than a solid content value of the claimed slurry (See, e.g., a solid content of “46 wt% or more”, as recited in claim 10).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang as modified teaches the negative electrode slurry of claim 16, further comprising an amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface of the artificial graphite particles ([0074], claim 10, Zhang).
Regarding claims 10-11, Zhang as modified teaches the negative electrode slurry of claim 16, wherein a solid content of the negative electrode slurry is in a range of 85% to 98% by weight based on a total weight of the negative electrode slurry ([0075], Zhang). The instantly claimed range of “46 wt% or more” overlaps that of 85% to 98% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Moreover, a negative value of a shear thickening slop as claimed is expected to be present since a similar negative electrode slurry to that as claimed is taught.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang as modified teaches a negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, and the negative electrode active material layer is formed from the negative electrode slurry of claim 16 (See, at least, [0071] and claim 10, Zhang).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang as modified teaches a secondary battery, comprising the negative electrode of claim 12, a positive electrode facing the negative electrode, a separator disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode, and an electrolyte (See, at least, [0062], [0099], claim 9, Zhang).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang as modified teaches the negative electrode slurry of claim 16, and the use of spheronized artificial graphite particles represents a specific shape of the graphite. However, providing the artificial graphite particles with a specific shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as modified, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lida et al. (US 20220393169 A1, hereafter Lida).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang as modified teaches the negative electrode slurry of claim 16, and further teaches an amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface of the artificial graphite particles ([0074], Zhang).
Zhang is silent as to an amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface of the artificial graphite particle. However, in the same field of endeavor, Iida discloses that an artificial graphite coated with an amorphous carbon coating in an amount of about 5 wt% in the negative electrode active material is used as a negative electrode active material (e.g., Example 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have further incorporated the teachings of Lida into Zhang such that, as taught by Lida, the amount of the amorphous carbon coating layer of Zhang is about 5 wt% in the negative electrode active material, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07 § 2143. As a result, the about 5 wt% reads on the range as claimed in claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because most of the arguments regarding the art rejections are inapplicable to the new ground of rejections.
In addition, 1) the argument regarding 'functional limitation' is not persuasive because the 'function' alleged by the Applicant relates to 'a sample,' not to 'a negative electrode slurry,' and the negative electrode slurry and the sample are two different things. Claim 16 does not claim any function of the “a negative electrode slurry”; 2) the solid content of “a sample” does not equate with the solid content value of “a negative electrode slurry”; and 3) the as-alleged “unexpected results” appear to relate to a solid content value of “a negative electrode slurry”. However, the “solid content value” as claimed is related to “a sample”, which differs from the “a negative electrode slurry” in scope (e.g., they have different compositions).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/
Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights