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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/30/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 06/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 06/28/2024, 01/14/2026, and 02/06/26 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/28/2024 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0191357 A1 (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a graphene-based porous carbon material useful as electrode material in lithium battery comprising at least one carbon nanotube, carbon black, and graphite as auxiliary component to achieve a better conductive network with superior electrical and thermal conductivities (See [0012], [0018] and [0037]). The carbon black and graphite of Yang fulfills the claimed carbon particles. Therefore, the graphene-based porous carbon material of Yang may include carbon nanotubes and carbon particles as claimed. Yang further discloses that the graphene-based porous carbon material having an elastic modulus (F) in a range from about 0.5 GPa to about 40 GPa (See [0031]). In one embodiment, Yang discloses that the elastic modulus is about 4.36 GPa (See [0050]; Example 1). The elastic modulus of the graphene-based porous carbon material, disclosed by Yang, is within the claimed elastic modulus range of 0.9≤Y≤1.50 GPa.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Yang discloses a carbon nanotube material (See [0018]). Carbon nanotube is a nanoscale material that is well known in the art to have a diameter of 100 nm or less. The instant claim require a carbon nanotube diameter of 0.005-0.05 um, which is equivalent to 5-50 nm. This diameter is within the diameter of a common carbon nanotube.
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses a specific surface area of the graphene-based porous carbon material is in a range from about 800 m2/g to about 3,000 m2/g (See [0032]). The specific surface area, disclosed by Yang, overlaps with the claimed specific surface area range of 1300 m2/g to 2800 m2/g.
Claim 10 is drawn to a conductivity property of the porous carbon material. Since Yang discloses a porous carbon material containing all the claimed components, the porous carbon material of Yang is structurally same or similar to the claimed porous carbon material and inherently has the same or similar conductive property as claimed. It has been held that “[p]roducts of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II. "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."
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses an average size (diameter) of the pore of the graphene-based porous carbon material is in a range from about 0.5 nm to about 600 nm (See [0033]).
The reference specifically or inherently meets each of the claimed limitations in their broadest interpretations. The reference is anticipatory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to the above claims, and further in view of US 2020/0373561 A1 (hereinafter Mason).
Yang is relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claim 3, Yang disclose that the carbon material particles such as carbon black and graphite (See [0018]), but does not disclose the carbon material particles satisfy at least one of the following conditions (1) or (2) of the instant claim.
Mason discloses a porous carbon material useful as electrode in batteries comprises graphite and hard carbon particles having a D50 particle diameter in the range from 10 to 50 um to obtain improve performance (See [0002], [0024] and [0277]). The D50 particle diameter of Mason satisfy condition (2) a particle size Dv50 of the carbon material particles satisfies 1 um≤Dv50≤20 um as required in the instant claim. Mason further discloses that the graphite and hard carbon particles having an average sphericity of at least 0.70 (See [0078]). The sphericity of Mason satisfy condition (1) a sphericity of the carbon material particles is D and 0.4≤D≤0.99 as required in the instant claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to formula a porous carbon material of Yang to have carbon material particles that satisfy at least condition (1) or (2) in order to provide improve performance as suggested by Mason.
Regarding claim 5, Mason discloses that that porous carbon material having a total pore volume in a range of 0 to 50 nm is P1 cm2/g and P1 is at leas 0.6 and no more than 2, i.e., 0.6≤P1≤2 (See [0046], [0047] and [0052]).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Mason as applied to the claim 5 above, and further in view of CN 113893819 A (hereinafter Li).
Yang and Mason are relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claim 6-9, Yang and Mason does not disclose the carbon porous material having pore volume ratio of P1/P0 and P2/P0 as recited in the instant claims.
Li discloses a porous carbon material having a total pore volume (claimed P0 cc/g) of 0.12-0.94 cm3/g, a pore volume of micropores with a pore diameter smaller than 2 nm (claim P1 cc/g) of 0.11-0.58 cm3/g, and a pore volume of ultramicropores with a pore diameter smaller than 1 nm (claim P2 cc/g) of 0.04-0.21 cm3/g (See Abstract and [0010]). The ratio of pore volume of micropores with a pore diameter smaller than 2 nm (claim P1 cc/g) of 0.11-0.58 cm3/g to a total pore volume (claimed P0 cc/g) of 0.12-0.94 cm3/g is overlaps with the claimed 0.7≤P1/P0≤0.99. The ratio of pore volume of ultramicropores with a pore diameter smaller than 1 nm (claim P2 cc/g) of 0.04-0.21 cm3/g to a total pore volume (claimed P0 cc/g) of 0.12-0.94 cm3/g is overlaps with the claimed 0.0.5≤P2/P0≤0.5. Li discloses a porous carbon material having specific pore volume is known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to recognized applying the known porous carbon material of Li to the teachings of Yang and Mason would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the porous carbon material application would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to the above claims, and further in view of CN 114122370 A (hereinafter Song, cited in IDS 02/06/2026).
Yang is relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claim 12, Yang disclose a porous carbon material containing carbon nanotubes (See claim 1 above), but does not disclose a scanning electron microscope image of one carbon nanotube penetrates no more than four carbon material and a quantity of the carbon nanotubes in one of the carbon material is 1 to 10.
In an analogous art, Song discloses a scanning electron microscope image of one carbon nanotube penetrates no more than four carbon material, and a quantity of the carbon nanotubes in one of the carbon material is 1 to 10 (See [0049]; Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to formula a porous carbon material of Yang to have a scanning electron microscope image as suggested by Song because it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan to obtain an image of the carbon porous material. Moreover, the amount of carbon nanotubes and carbon material on or inside the porous carbon material could be control by adjusting their concentration.
With respect to claim 13, Yang disclose a porous carbon material useful as electrode material in lithium battery comprises a porous carbon material wherein the porous carbon material comprises carbon nanotubes and carbon material particles, wherein a particle elastic modulus of the porous carbon material is within a range of 0.9 GPa to 5.0 GPa (See claim 1 above), but does not disclose a silicon material.
Song discloses silicon-carbon material useful as an anode (electrode) in lithium battery (See [0023]) comprises a porous carbon material containing carbon nanotubes and carbon black and silicon particles in order to improve performance (See Abstract; [0025] and [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate silicon particles of Song into the porous carbon material of Yang in order improve performance as suggested by Song. The burden is upon the applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
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 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761