DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 49 and 53-78 are pending, wherein claims 49, 53 and 56-58 are amended, and claims 60-78 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 49 and 53-59 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Amendments
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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.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.
Information Disclosure Statement
All the references mentioned in the Applicant’s arguments/remarks are not proper information disclosure statements. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretations
Applicant changed the term “flake crystalline graphite” recited in [0023] of the specification to “crystalline flake graphite”, which is claimed in the amended claim 1. However, it is the examiner’s position that this change does not make a difference with respect to the composition and shape of graphite described using the above-mentioned two terms. A particle described by either of the two terms is interpreted as referring to a graphite particle that is crystalline and has a flake shape.
Drawings and Specification
The amended drawing and specification, filed July 29, 2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 53 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 53 recites the limitation "according to claim 52". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “according to claim 49”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 49, 53-57 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20100136432 A1, hereafter Kim), or in the alternative, unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee et al. (KR 2021003128 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 49, Kim (See at least: Figs. 1) teaches a composite anode material (“negative electrode material”, see at least Abstract) comprising a plurality of carbon (130) coated graphite particles (110) (i.e., 100), wherein at least some of the carbon coated graphite particles are in the form of an individual crystalline graphite particle (110; one of ordinary skill in the art would know that graphite is crystalline) coated by an external amorphous (See “amorphous” in [0030]) carbon-containing shell (130) surrounding the crystalline graphite particle (Fig. 1).
Although Kim does not appear to disclose a flake shape of the graphite, it is noted however that absent persuasive evidence showing that a particular configuration (i.e., flake shape) is significant, a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). For instance, a crystalline graphite particle having a flake shape is used in a composite anode material of Lee (See at least Figs.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used a particle of crystalline graphite having a flake shape in Kim, as taught by Lee, since simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2143). Similarly, as to “spheronised carbon”, although Kim does not use “spheronised carbon”, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the carbon layer 130 is composed of numerous carbon particles. Again, a mere change in shape is not sufficient to provide a patentable distinction over the prior art since the shape itself may be considered as merely a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 53, Kim in view of Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 49 (See the 112 rejection above), and further teaches in [0032] that the thickness of the external amorphous carbon shell is adjustable in order to achieve desired cycle-life characteristics and irreversible capacity of the negative electrode active material. Thus, the said thickness is a result-effective variable. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the said thickness is proportional to the weight ratio of the external amorphous carbon shell in the composite anode material. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the instantly claimed weight ratio by adjusting the result-effective variable through routine experimentation to achieve desired cycle-life characteristics and irreversible capacity.
Regarding claim 54-55, Kim in view of Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 49, wherein the composite anode material has an average particle diameter of 3 to 28 µm (1 µm +1 µm*2 to 20 µm +4 µm*2, i.e., 3 µm to 28 µm, see [0027] and [0032], Kim), reading on the particle size as claimed. The claimed specific surface area is reasonably expected because the specific surface area is closely related to the particle size of a material and Kim teaches the claimed particle size.
Regarding claim 56, Kim in view Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 49, and further suggests a pure graphite is used ([0011], Kim), reading on the claimed purity.
Regarding claim 57, Kim in view Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 49 and further teaches natural graphite may be used ([0026], Kim).
Regarding claim 59, Kim in view of Lee teaches an anode composite comprising a composite anode material as claimed in claim 49 (e.g., a mixture of metal-graphite composite and artificial graphite, see [0062]-[0063], Kim).
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee, as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Ku et al. (US 20150243969 A1, hereafter Ku).
Regarding claim 58, Kim in view of Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 49, but is silent as to an oxide as claimed. However, in the same field, Ku discloses an anode material, where a metal oxide-including coating layer on the surface of the core may provide improved structural stability ([0055]). 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 Ku into Kim in view of Lee such that an oxide is included in the external amorphous carbon shell of Lee to improve structural stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
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, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights