DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Nov. 10, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 49 and 52-78 are pending, wherein claims 49, 56-58, 60 and 68 are amended, and claims 60-78 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 49 and 52-59 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Figure 1 appears misleading. Specifically, the sign “12” directs at a single piece/unit of those pieces/units (See Fig. 1). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider that single piece as the claimed “an individual graphite particle”. However, according to Applicant’s arguments, it appears that the Applicant intends to consider the entire body formed of all those pieces/units as “an individual graphite particle” (See below).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 49 and 52-59 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.
According to the claim languages of claim 49, the “spheronised carbon coated graphite particles” comprises 1) “an individual graphite particle”; 2) “a carbon matrix”; and 3) “an external amorphous carbon-containing shell” that surrounds the carbon matrix coating. However, the specification (e.g., Fig. 1) does not appear to support this composition/structure. In Fig. 1, “18” comprises only “2) a carbon matrix” (e.g., pitch) on particles, and “24” comprises only “3) an amorphous carbon shell 26” on particles. Where is the particle of 1) that is coated by both 2) and 3)? The claim is thus indefinite. A clarification is required. Additionally, Applicant should have pointed out where in the specification the amended “carbon-containing shell” from “carbon shell” is supported.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the graphite particles" in “wherein the graphite particles are in the form of flake crystalline graphite particles”. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim is insufficient and the limitation is ambiguous and unclear, because the limitation can refer to the “a plurality of spheronised carbon coated graphite particles” or the “graphite particles” in the “a plurality of spheronised carbon coated graphite particles”. The said two cases are different in composition and structure.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the carbon matrix coating". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 49, 52-57 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2021003128 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding claims 49 and 52, Lee (See at least: Figs. 1-3) teaches a composite anode material (“negative electrode material”, see Title and Abstract) comprising a plurality of carbon coated graphite particles (See “2”, Fig. 3), wherein at least some of the carbon coated graphite particles are in the form of an individual graphite particles (particles “11” in particle “2” that excludes “12” and “14”, see Fig. 3) coated by a carbon matrix in the form of an external amorphous carbon-containing shell (See, e.g., “12” in Fig. 3; “carbon precursor”, “pitch”, at least [0023]-[0024]). Lee further teaches an average particle diameter of the composite anode material is in a range of 3 to 40 µm (claim 7 of Lee), overlapping the range as claimed. 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).
Lee teaches the graphite particles are in the form of flake crystalline graphite particles (“flake”, [0039]; and one of ordinary skill in the art knows that graphite is crystalline).
Regarding claim 53, Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 52, wherein the carbon matrix is about 5% to 30% of graphite particles ([0042]), corresponding to about 4.8% to 23% (i.e., 5/(5+100) to 30/(30+100) of the composite anode material. The range as claimed overlaps that of 4.8% to 23%. 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).
Regarding claim 54-55, Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 49, wherein the composite anode material has an average particle diameter of 3 to 40 µm (claim 7 of Lee), 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 Lee teaches the claimed particle size.
Regarding claim 56, Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 49, and further suggest a pure graphite is used ([0011]), reading on the claimed purity.
Regarding claim 57, Lee teaches the composite anode material of claim 49, and further teaches natural graphite may be used (at least: [0003]).
Regarding claim 59, Lee teaches an anode composite comprising a composite anode material as claimed in claim 49 (at least: [0051]).
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Ku et al. (US 20150243969 A1, hereafter Ku).
Regarding claim 58, 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 Lee such that an oxide is included in the external amorphous carbon shell of Lee in order to improve structural stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Oct. 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lee’s electrode active material comprises a number of graphite aggregate particles 11, each of which is an agglomeration of a number of individual particles 21, and therefore cannot read on the claimed individual graphite particle, it is noted that an “individual graphite particle” can be interpreted as referring to an individual primary particle of graphite or an individual secondary particle of graphite”. The “21” of Lee is an individual secondary particle and therefore can read on an individual graphite particle as claimed. The claim language does not limit “an individual graphite particle” to be an individual primary particle of graphite. Note that the examination is based on claim languages and one cannot read the specification (e.g., the instant Fig. 1) into claims.
Each word in the term “flake crystalline graphite particles” as claimed must be considered. The “flake graphite” at https://kdmfab.com/flake-graphite mentioned by Applicant is not the same as the above term, and therefore cannot read into claims. Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the instant case, the specification as originally filed does not redefine the term “flake crystalline graphite particles”, so a plain meaning has been applied. Note also that the above-mentioned reference about “flake graphite” should be filed in the form of IDS for consideration.
Conclusion
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