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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 09 December 2024 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to PG publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications made under the format “ col 1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 31 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a lack of burden. This is not found persuasive because Groups I and II are directed to specific inventions (i.e. different process, apparatus, material and/or composition) that require differing search strategies and databases (class/subclass) and/or the search for a particular invention would not necessarily lead to the same and overlapping prior art for the supplementary invention - thus leading to an undue burden on the examiner
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 31 July 2026.
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.
Claim 11 is 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. Claim 11 recites the limitations of “blocky” and “quasi-spherical”, the limitations are indefinite since it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claimed structural limitations (what is the threshold for a material to be blocky or quasi-spherical?).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US-20220013779-A1).
Claims 1 and 2: Yamada discloses a porous carbon material having a Raman spectrum ratio of IB/IA (which corresponds to the claimed ID/IG ) 0.15 to 0.5 with various specific values such as 0.28 (abs, ¶102-110, Tables with accompanying text).
Claims 10 and 11: Yamada discloses various structural, chemical and/or electrical values such as a tap density of 1.22 g/cm3 and a D50 of 16.2 microns (¶118-142 and Table 1 with accompanying text).
Claims 19 and 20: Yamada discloses the negative electrode and battery products (abs, examples).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunan (CN109553080B, cited in the IDS).
Claims 1 and 2: Hunan discloses a porous carbon material having a Raman spectrum ratio ID/IG of 0.15 to 0.2 with specific values such as 0.2 (abs, ¶21-34, Table 1 with accompanying text).
Claims 10 and 11: Hunan discloses various structural, chemical and/or electrical values such as a tap density of 0.9-1.2 g/cm3, a graphitization degree of 93% and a SSA BET of 0.9 to 1.3 m2/g (¶15-35 and Tables 1-3 with accompanying text).
Claims 19 and 20: Hunan discloses the negative electrode and battery products (abs, ¶8-9, examples).
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameda (US-20120064403-A1).
Claims 1 and 2: Kameda discloses a porous carbon material having a Raman spectrum ratio ID/IG of 0.25-0.6 (abs, ¶19-24, Table 1 with accompanying text). The Kameda reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the claimed IB/IA ratio. Given that the Kameda reference discloses a IB/IA range that overlaps with the presently claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught IB/IA ratios, including those presently claimed, to obtain a suitable composition. According to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the IB/IA variable with the benefit gain of enhanced conductivity, capacity and efficiency, parameters of the material Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 3-9: Kameda discloses the material being porous, optimizing the pores volume and size, an additional carbon coating (thus leading to a multi-layered material with an internal region), the optimization of the coating, the graphite degree, the d-spacing of 3.37 Angstrom or less and a similar synthetic route (¶19-43, 57-76, 84-94, 130-136, examples, Table 1 with accompanying text).
The Kameda reference(s) disclose(s) the claimed invention but do(es) not explicitly disclose the claimed pore area values and the multi-layered carbon material with the structural features such as the spacing, internal and interlayer components. Given that the Kameda reference discloses a similar carbon material with similar chemical, structural and electrical features, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention optimize the claimed variables, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables to gain the benefit of enhanced conductivity, capacity and efficiency, since the reference also discloses a similar porous material. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed variables would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 10 and 11: Kameda discloses various structural, chemical and/or electrical values such as a tap density greater than 0.8 g/cm3 and a SSA BET of 2-5 m2/g (¶19-24, 55, 83, 139 and Table 1 with accompanying text).
Claims 19 and 20: Kameda discloses the negative electrode and battery products (abs, ¶15-16, examples).
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada.
Yamada discloses the material being porous, optimizing the pores volume and size, an additional carbon coating (thus leading to a multi-layered material with an internal region), the optimization of the coating, the graphite degree and the d-spacing of 0.340 nm or smaller (¶12-29, 40-53, 82-89, 122-131, 141-142, 280-312, 371-388, Table 1 with accompanying text).
The Yamada reference(s) disclose(s) the claimed invention but do(es) not explicitly disclose the claimed pore area values and the multi-layered carbon material with the structural features such as the spacing, internal and interlayer components. Given that the Yamada reference discloses a similar carbon material with similar chemical, structural and electrical features, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention optimize the claimed variables to gain the benefit of enhanced conductivity, capacity and efficiency,, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables, since the reference also discloses a similar porous material. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed variables would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunan.
Hunan discloses the material being porous, optimizing the pores volume and size, an additional carbon coating (thus leading to a multi-layered material with an internal region), the optimization of the coating, the graphite degree, the d-spacing of 0.3368 nm or smaller and a similar synthetic route (¶20-34, 41-68, examples, Table 1 with accompanying text).
The Hunan reference(s) disclose(s) the claimed invention but do(es) not explicitly disclose the claimed pore area values and the multi-layered carbon material with the structural features such as the spacing, internal and interlayer components. Given that the Hunan reference discloses a similar carbon material with similar chemical, structural and electrical features, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention optimize the claimed variables, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize known variables to gain the benefit of enhanced conductivity, capacity and efficiency, since the reference also discloses a similar porous material. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection or optimization of the claimed variables would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571.270.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights