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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2022-104551, filed on June 29, 2022.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [Math. 1] on page 15 of the instant specification includes non-English characters and should be amended to show an appropriate translation.
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 2-3 and 6-12 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.
The values of true density put forth in claims 3 and 6 are not given units. Furthermore, it is not clear from the claim language what material or product has the claimed true density. Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected as they are dependent on Claims 3 and 6. For the purpose of examination the true density is assumed to be of the non-graphitizing carbon material in units of grams per cubic centimeter.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the average particle size" in the first and second lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected as they are dependent on claim 2.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/716,629 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/716,629 teaches a substantially identical preparation method of the claimed non-graphitizable carbon of the instant application. This gives the appearance that the non-graphitizing carbon of copending application No. 18/716,629 is the same material as the non-graphitizing carbon of the instant application, with the difference in claimed elements being a mere difference of characterization methods.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonobe (U.S. Patent No. 5,587,255).
Regarding Claim 1, Sonobe teaches a non-graphitizable carbon (Col. 2 lines 50-55 teach a non-graphitizable component).
Sonobe does not explicitly teach a Guinier radius Rg1 in a range of a scattering vector q of 0.30 nm-1 or more and 0.40 nm-1 or less as measured by small-angle X-ray scattering and determined by Guinier analysis is 3.00 nm or more and 5.80 nm or less, a Guinier radius Rg2 in a range of the scattering vector q of 2.05 nm-1 or more and 2.85 nm-1 or less is 0.35 nm or more and 0.57 nm or less, and an average lattice plane distance d002 of a (002) plane determined by X-ray diffraction is 0.365 nm or more and 0.375 nm or less.
Sonobe teaches the non-graphitizable carbon has an average interlayer spacing d002 of at least 0.365 nm (abstract and Col. 3 lines 28-33 teach a d002 spacing of at least 0.365 before reacting with water). This disclosure teaches the limitation of the d002 spacing being 0.365-0.375 nm. 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. In the instant case, the claimed range of 0.365-0.375 nm lies within the taught range of at least 0.365 nm. While Sonobe does not disclose the Guinier radius or any small-angle x-ray scattering of the non-graphitizable carbon, the physical properties of the non-graphitizable carbon taught by Sonobe sufficiently overlap with those of the non-graphitizable carbon of the instant application that the non-graphitizable carbon of Sonobe would inherently have Guinier radii overlapping with the Guinier radii claimed in the instant application. These physical properties include particle size (Col. 9 lines 45-55 teach an average particle diameter of 5-100 µm), surface area (Col. 11 lines 7-13 teach a BET surface area of 2.4 m2/g), and true density (Col. 4 lines 13-25 teach a true density of 1.45-1.70 g/cm3). The instant specification recognizes that these, and similar, physical properties contribute to the measured Guinier radii. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to produce a non-graphitizing carbon material with Guinier radii that overlap with the Guinier radii claimed in the instant application.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Sonobe does not explicitly teach the average particle size is 20 µm or more and 40 µm or less.
Sonobe teaches that the particles have a size of 5-100 µm (Col. 9 lines 45-55). This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the particle size is 20-40 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. In the instant case, the claimed range of 20-40 µm lies within the taught range of 5-100 µm.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Sonobe does not explicitly teach a true density is 1.45 or more and 1.58 or less.
Sonobe teaches a true density of 1.45-1.70 g/cm3 (Col. 4 lines 13-25). This disclosure fully teaches the limitations of Claim 3, where in a true density is 1.45-1.58. 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. In the instant case, the claimed range of 1.45-1.58 lies within the taught range of 1.45-1.70 g/cm3.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Sonobe further teaches the use of the non-graphitizable carbon in a negative electrode for a lithium-ion battery (Col. 13 lines 47-49).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 4 as discussed above.
Sonobe further teaches the use of the negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Col. 13 lines 41-49).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Modified Sonobe does not explicitly teach a true density is 1.45 or more and 1.58 or less.
Sonobe teaches a true density of 1.45-1.70 g/cm3 (Col. 4 lines 13-25). This disclosure fully teaches the limitations of Claim 3, where in a true density is 1.45-1.58. 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. In the instant case, the claimed range of 1.45-1.58 lies within the taught range of 1.45-1.70 g/cm3.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Sonobe further teaches the use of the non-graphitizable carbon in a negative electrode for a lithium-ion battery (Col. 13 lines 47-49).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Sonobe further teaches the use of the non-graphitizable carbon in a negative electrode for a lithium-ion battery (Col. 13 lines 47-49).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 6 as discussed above.
Sonobe further teaches the use of the non-graphitizable carbon in a negative electrode for a lithium-ion battery (Col. 13 lines 47-49).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 7 as discussed above.
Sonobe further teaches the use of the negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Col. 13 lines 41-49).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 8 as discussed above.
Sonobe further teaches the use of the negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Col. 13 lines 41-49).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Sonobe teaches all the limitation of Claim 9 as discussed above.
Sonobe further teaches the use of the negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Col. 13 lines 41-49).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Imaji (US 2014/0080004) Teaches a non-graphitizable carbon with a d002 spacing of 0.365-0.400 nm and a particle size of 30 µm.
Matsubara (US 2023/0055862) teaches a non-graphitizable carbon with a d002 spacing of 0.37 nm or more and a particle size of 3-30 µm.
Haga (US 2014/0294714) teaches a method of producing non-graphitizable carbon very similar to the synthetic method taught by the instant specification, ultimately yielding a very similar non-graphitizable carbon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN G. DIAMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-5888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/B.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/SADIE WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights