DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on December 31, 2025. Claims 1 and 19 are currently amended. Claims 11 and 13 are canceled. Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-20 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “a first negative electrode mixture layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector and consisting of natural graphite as a negative electrode active material” (lines 4-6).
Because the claim requires a mixture it is clear that “consisting of” limits the active material to natural graphite only without excluding other components, which are not active materials.
The specification is clear that a binder and a conductive material are present for the purposes of improving adhesion and electronic conductivity, respectively (p. 10-11). All of the examples also include binder and conductive material in addition to the active material. Moreover, the characterization of the electrode layer as a “mixture layer” implies the presence of a mixture of components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0287316, hereinafter Ahn.
Regarding claim 1, Ahn teaches a multilayer anode (abstract and figure 2).
The multilayer anode includes a current collector (21) (paragraphs [0021, 0023] and figure 2). It is well-known in the art that the purpose of a current collector in a battery is to transfer electrons between an active material layer and a battery terminal.
A first anode active material layer (A) is formed on one surface of the current collector (21) and consists of a first anode active material (23) (paragraphs [0021, 0036] and figure 2). Ahn identifies natural graphite, artificial graphite or a mixture of them as possible active materials for the first anode active material (23) (paragraph [0025], claim 3 and figure 2).
A second anode active material layer (B) is formed on the first anode active material layer (A). Ahn identifies natural graphite, artificial graphite or a mixture of them as possible active materials for the second anode active material (24) (paragraphs [0021, 0025], claim 3 and figure 2).
Ahn further teaches that the first anode active material (23) and the second anode active material (24) may be the same or may be different (paragraph [0025]).
The average particle diameter in the first anode active material (23) is in the range 10 µm to 18 µm (paragraph [0026]).
In an example Ahn teaches a weight ratio of the first anode active material layer (A) to the second anode active material layer (B) of 1:1 (paragraphs [0061, 0062]).
Ahn does not explicitly teach a configuration in which the first anode active material (23) is natural graphite and the second anode active material comprises artificial graphite.
Given that Ahn teaches that the active material of the two layers may be different, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select out of the finite, limited possibilities for different materials in the layers the one which has natural graphite as the active material of the first anode active material layer (A) and artificial graphite as active material of the second anode active material layer (B) without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Ahn teaches that the average particle diameter of the first anode active material (23) (and thus of the natural graphite) is in the range 10 µm to 18 µm (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Ahn teaches that the second anode active material layer (B) may comprise a mixture of natural graphite and artificial graphite as active material (24) (paragraphs [0021, 0025] and claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, within the scope of Ahn’s teaching is a first anode active material layer (A) consisting of natural graphite as the active material (23) and a second anode active material layer (B) consisting of artificial graphite as the active material (24). Ahn teaches that the press density of the active material (23) is higher than the press density of the active material (24) (paragraph [0028]). Therefore, in a configuration in which the two layers are present in a weight ratio of 1:1, the “amount” by volume of the second active material (24) (the artificial graphite) would be greater than the “amount” by volume of the first active material (23) (the natural graphite).
Regarding claim 14, Ahn teaches that a ratio of the average particle diameter of the first anode active material (23) to the average particle diameter of the second anode active material (24) is in the range 1:1.3 to 1:4 (paragraph [0026]). In a specific example, Ahn teaches a ratio of 1.625 (Table 1).
Ahn teaches that the average particle diameter of the first anode active material (23) (the natural graphite) is in the range 10 µm to 18 µm (paragraph [0026]). Applying a ratio of 1.625 would result in an average particle diameter in the second anode active material (24) (the artificial graphite) in the range 16.25 µm to 29.25 µm.
Regarding claim 18, Ahn teaches that the artificial graphite is in the form of powder (paragraphs [0025, 0071]).
Regarding claim 20, Ahn teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the multilayer anode of claim 1 (paragraph [0002]).
Claims 2, 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0287316, hereinafter Ahn in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0274406, hereinafter Fuse.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ahn teaches natural graphite as the active material (23) of the first anode active material layer (A).
Ahn fails to teach the tap density of the natural graphite.
Fuse teaches natural graphite as anode active material for a lithium-ion battery. Fuse’s material has a preferred tap density in the range 0.8 g/cc to 1.35 g/cc (paragraph [0105]). Fuse teaches that a material with this tap density achieves optimal packing density and thus favorable battery performance characteristics (paragraph [0115]). In specific examples, Fuse teaches a tap density of 1 g/cc (Table 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a natural graphite with the tap density taught by Fuse for the purpose of optimizing the battery’s performance.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ahn teaches natural graphite as the active material (23) of the first anode active material layer (A).
Ahn fails to specify the BET surface area of the natural graphite.
Fuse teaches natural graphite as anode active material for a lithium-ion battery. Fuse teaches that the natural graphite has a preferred BET surface area in the range 2.5 m2/g to 7 m2/g for the purpose of optimizing lithium intercalation (paragraph [0050]). In a specific example, Fuse teaches a BET specific surface area for the natural graphite of 2.6 m2/g (Table 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select natural graphite with a BET specific surface area as taught by Fuse for the purpose of achieving optimal lithium intercalation.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0287316, hereinafter Ahn in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0297500, hereinafter Kawai.
Regarding claim 2, Ahn teaches natural graphite as the active material (23) of the first anode active material layer (A).
Ahn fails to teach the tap density of the natural graphite.
Kawai teaches natural graphite as an anode active material (paragraph [0019]).
Kawai teaches that a suitable tap density for the natural graphite is in the range 0.8 g/cc to 1.4 g/cc (paragraphs [0028, 0031]). In a specific example, Kawai teaches a tap density of 1.2 g/cc (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a natural graphite with the tap density taught by Kawai for the purpose of optimizing the battery’s performance.
Regarding claim 3, Ahn teaches natural graphite as the active material (23) of the first anode active material layer (A).
Ahn fails to teach the tap density of the natural graphite.
Kawai teaches natural graphite as an anode active material (paragraph [0019]).
Kawai teaches that a suitable tap density for the natural graphite is in the range 0.8 g/cc to 1.4 g/cc (paragraphs [0028, 0031]). In a specific example, Kawai teaches a tap density of 1.2 g/cc (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a natural graphite with the tap density taught by Kawai for the purpose of optimizing the battery’s performance.
The optimum range for the tap density of the natural graphite in the combination of Ahn and Kawai overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.92 g/cc to 1.15 g/cc. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Ahn teaches natural graphite.
Ahn fails to specify the type of natural graphite.
Kawai teaches natural graphite as an active material (abstract). Kawai teaches that the natural graphite is flake graphite (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use flake graphite as Ahn’s natural graphite without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Ahn teaches artificial graphite as an anode active material.
Ahn fails to teach the tap density of the artificial graphite.
Kawai teaches artificial graphite as an anode active material (abstract and paragraph [0019]).
Kawai teaches that a suitable tap density for the artificial graphite is in the range 0.4 g/cc to 1.0 g/cc (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an artificial graphite with the tap density taught by Kawai for the purpose of optimizing the battery’s performance.
The optimum range for the tap density of the artificial graphite in the combination of Ahn and Kawai overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.7 g/cc to 1.1 g/cc. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Ahn teaches natural graphite as an anode active material.
Ahn fails to teach that the natural graphite is pitch-coated.
Kawai teaches an anode active material layer that includes natural graphite (abstract and paragraph [0019]). Kawai teaches that the natural graphite is pitch-coated for the purpose of forming a hard shell on the surface of the natural graphite particles for the purpose of ensuring that their shapes are preserved during pressing of the electrode (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select pitch-coated natural graphite for the purpose of preventing the collapse of the particles during pressing of the electrode.
Claims 5, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0287316, hereinafter Ahn as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0171532, hereinafter Okanishi.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 16, Ahn teaches natural graphite and artificial graphite as active materials for a lithium-ion battery.
Ahn fails to report XRD results for the materials.
The instant specification relates the claimed peak ratios to unspecified results involving the peak at I004 instead of the peak at I003 (paragraph [0038] of the published application). The effect on battery performance of the degree of orientation of graphite used as an active material is understood in the prior art – see, e.g. Okanishi, who teaches a specific range for the ratio of I110 to I004 (paragraphs [0060-0069]). Absent evidence to the contrary, it is expected that the corresponding ratio of I110 to I003 at least overlaps the instantly claimed range.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Ahn’s material to satisfy the peak ratio taught by Okanishi for the purpose of improving the battery’s performance.
Claims 7-9, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0287316, hereinafter Ahn in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0186702, hereinafter Takahata.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ahn teaches natural graphite.
Ahn fails to specify the BET surface area of the natural graphite.
Takahata teaches a negative electrode active material comprising natural graphite as active material (abstract). Takahata teaches that the natural graphite has a BET surface area in the range 2 m2/g to 4.5 m2/g (paragraph [0013]). In a specific example, Takahata teaches a BET specific surface area for the natural graphite of 2.2 m2/g, 2.5 m2/g and 3.2 m2/g (paragraphs [0117] and figure 15).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select natural graphite with a BET specific surface area as taught by Takahata for the purpose of optimizing the battery’s capacity retention after storage.
Regarding claim 9, Ahn teaches natural graphite.
Ahn fails to specify the type of natural graphite.
Takahata teaches natural graphite as an active material (abstract). Takahata teaches that the natural graphite may be flake graphite (paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use flake graphite as Ahn’s natural graphite without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Ahn teaches that the second anode active material layer (B) may comprise a mixture of natural graphite and artificial graphite as active material (24) (paragraphs [0021, 0025] and claim 3).
Ahn fails to specify the BET surface area of the natural graphite and the artificial graphite.
Takahata teaches active material layers that are a mixture of natural graphite and artificial graphite (abstract).
Takahata teaches that the artificial graphite has a BET surface area in the range 1.8 m2/g to 4.0 m2/g (paragraphs [0013, 0114]) and the natural graphite has a BET surface area in the range 2 m2/g to 4.5 m2/g (paragraphs [0013, 0117]). Takahata does not explicitly teach that the BET surface area of the artificial graphite is smaller than that of the natural graphite. However, given the taught ranges, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist to select a smaller BET surface area for the artificial graphite out of the limited options of a smaller, same or larger surface area without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, the taught range for the BET surface area of the artificial graphite has end points with lower values that the end points of the range for the BET surface area of the natural graphite and this further directs the ordinarily skilled artist toward selecting a smaller BET surface area for the artificial graphite.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select artificial graphite and natural graphite with BET specific surface areas as taught by Takahata for the purpose of optimizing the battery’s capacity retention after storage.
Regarding claim 19, Ahn teaches natural graphite.
Ahn fails to teach that the natural graphite is pitch-coated.
Takahata teaches that it is advantageous to coat natural graphite with pitch in order to form an amorphous carbon film and to thereby protect the natural graphite from unwanted side reactions with the electrolyte (paragraphs [0066, 0067]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pitch-coat the natural graphite for the purpose of protecting it from unwanted side reactions with the electrolyte.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 13 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,220 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0287316, hereinafter Ahn.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 13 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,220 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1-10, 12, 14 and 16-20 except for the first negative electrode mixture layer consisting of natural graphite as a negative active material, the average particle diameter of the natural graphite and the average particle diameter of the artificial graphite.
Ahn teaches an anode having two anode active material layers. Each layer may include artificial graphite, natural graphite or a mixture thereof and the material of the layers may be different. Ahn further teaches natural graphite having a diameter in the range 10 µm to 18 µm and artificial graphite having a diameter in the range 16.25 µm to 29.25 µm. Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select only natural graphite for the first layer as this is a known alternative in the art. It would further have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an average particle diameter for the natural graphite in the range 10 µm to 18 µm and an average particle diameter for the artificial graphite in the range 16.25 µm to 29.25 µm without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the previously presented Ahn reference was found to address the amended claims.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights