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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are amended. Claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 10-11, 13, and 16-18, as filed 8 July 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included herein.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 10 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the following limitations:
an atomic ratio of Nb to Ti is more than 2.0 but equal to or less than 2.3;
a ratio of a total atomic weight of Al, Y, La, Ce, Pr, and Sm to a total atomic weight of Ti and Nb is equal to or more than 0.001 but equal to or less than 0.016;
a ratio of a peak intensity in a range of diffraction angles 2Θ from 27.2° to 27.6° to a peak intensity in a range of diffraction angles 2Θ from 26.2° to 26.4° is equal to or less than 6.5:100;
This argument is not persuasive in light of new citations to Inagaki, Harada ‘343 and Harada ‘543.
Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to modify Inagaki with Harada ‘343 and Harada ‘543. This argument is not persuasive. The three references are all directed toward a niobium titanate active material. While Harada ‘343 does contain some mixed-phase particles containing high-Nb content phases, each example of Harada ‘343 table 1 does contain TiNb2O7.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Inagaki (US 20150086839 A1) in view of Harada ‘343 (US 20190296343 A1) and in further view of Harada ‘543 (US 20150270543 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Inagaki teaches a titanium-niobium oxide having a crystal structure represented by a general formula TiNb2O7, ([0009], [0025], [0028] “monoclinic”).
Inagaki is silent on the limitation wherein the oxide comprises 0.05 at% to less than 0.30 at% of K and/or Na as an alkali metal element.
Harada ‘343 teaches [0037] a similar monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide, and teaches [0057] that the active material may contain at least one element selected from the group consisting of ….K, Na, … preferably at 0.5 atm% or less, and that the selection of … Na, K … can mitigate the reduction in capacity caused by the Nb-rich phase having a large weight. This encompasses the range of the instant claim limitation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Inagaki’s titanium-niobium oxide to further include at least one of K or Na in an amount of less than 0.5 at%, in order to mitigate the reduction in capacity caused by the Nb-rich phase having a large weight, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of successfully arriving at a value meeting the instant claim limitation and mitigating the reduction in capacity. [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding the limitation an atomic ratio of Nb to Ti is more than 2.0 but equal to or less than 2.3, Inagaki discloses [0251] the use of material having the composition Ti0.9Zr 0.1Nb2O7, which is monoclinic.
Inagaki is silent on wherein the titanium-niobium oxide further comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Y, La, Ce, Pr, and Sm; and wherein a ratio of a total atomic weight of Al, Y, La, Ce, Pr, and Sm to a total atomic weight of Ti and Nb is equal to or more than 0.001 but equal to or less than 0.016;
Harada ‘543 teaches [0202] a similar monoclinic composite oxide and teaches [0019] a general formula Lix(Nb1-yTay)2 +0.5z Ti1-zM0.5z O7 (0≤x≤5, 0
≤
y≤1, and 0<z≤1), this encompasses the claimed range. At [0171] Harada ‘543 discloses the use yttrium oxide as a dopant, and (Table 1 example 10) a niobium titanium oxide having Y = 0.05, and a retention rate of 92% after 100 cycles. Regarding example 10, the ratio of the atomic weight of Y to the total atomic weight of Ti and Nb is 0.05/(2.05 + 0.9) = 0.0169, which is just above the claimed range. Harada ‘543 teaches ([0202]) that the monoclinic composite oxides of examples 1-14 have good volume resistivities compared to un-doped Nb2TiO7. (Comparative example 1)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to further modify the niobium titanium composite oxide of modified Inagaki with the Y dopant in order to provide a battery having an optimal retention rate and the electrode with good volume resistivity, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. The person on ordinary skill would further be motivated to optimize the amount of the dopant in order to further improve volume resistivity, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the claimed range.
Regarding the limitation a ratio of a peak intensity in a range of diffraction angles 2Θ from 27.20 to 27.6
˚
to a peak intensity in a range of diffraction angles 2Θ from 26.2˚ to 26.4˚ is equal to or less than 6.5%, Inagaki teaches at ([0028] and FIG. 10) TiNb2O7 with a monoclinic crystal structure enabling rapid diffusion of lithium ions and conduction paths connecting these channels. “Thus, TiNb2O7 can provide a high capacity and high rate performance.” The material as shown at FIG. 10 meets the instant peak intensity ratio.
Alternatively, regarding the peak intensity ratio, the method of making Inagaki’s active material is essentially the same as that of the instant application. At ([0094-0097]) Inagaki discloses mixing starting materials and sintering at 900 to 1400˚C for 1 to 100 hours. The instant application discloses ([0038-0043]) mixing starting materials and sintering at 1000 to 1300 ˚C for 1 to 24 hours.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that essentially identical process conditions and essentially identical starting materials (with the exception of some dopants) would create the same crystal structure in the instant invention as that of Inagaki.
Inagaki does not explicitly teach that when an aspect ratio defined as a ratio of a major-axis length to a minor-axis length of primary particles of the titanium-niobium oxide is represented as a volume log- normal distribution, a proportion of the primary particles of which the aspect ratio is more than three is equal to or less than 11 vol%. However, Inagaki teaches at [0052] that the primary particles are “preferably isotropic particles” and have “aspect ratio of three or less.” FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show a mixture of larger secondary particles and smaller primary particles. The primary particles appear to be close enough to spherical that the aspect ratio is expected to be significantly under three.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, based on FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 of Inagaki, and Inagaki’s teaching of preferably isotropic particles” and “aspect ratio of three or less” would suggest selection of rounder particles (lower aspect ratio) such that, when an aspect ratio defined as a ratio of a major-axis length to a minor-axis length of primary particles of the titanium-niobium oxide is represented as a volume log- normal distribution, a proportion of the primary particles of which the aspect ratio is more than three is equal to or less than 11 vol%.
Regarding the limitation when the major-axis length of the primary particles of the titanium-niobium oxide is represented as a volume log-normal distribution, a proportion of the primary particles of which the major-axis length is more than 3 µm is equal to or less than 5 vol%, Inagaki shows (FIG. 3 FIG. 5) particles that are primarily spherical) and teaches ([0052]) that the average primary particle diameter is more preferably from 10 nm to 1 µm, which results in easy handling in industrial production and accelerated diffusion of lithium ions in the niobium composite oxide.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize particle size distribution of the primary particle, in order to obtain easy handling in industrial production and accelerated diffusion of lithium ions in the niobium composite oxide, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a primary particle meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Inagaki in view of Harada ‘343 and Harada ‘543 teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Inagaki is silent on wherein the titanium-niobium oxide further comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Y, La, Ce, Pr, and Sm; and wherein a ratio of a total atomic weight of Al, Y, La, Ce, Pr, and Sm to a total atomic weight of Ti and Nb is equal to or more than 0.002 but equal to or less than 0.016;
Harada ‘543 teaches [0202] a similar monoclinic composite oxide and teaches [0019] a general formula Lix(Nb1-yTay)2 +0.5z Ti1-zM0.5z O7 (0≤x≤5, 0
≤
y≤1, and 0<z≤1), this encompasses the claimed range. At [0171] Harada ‘543 discloses the use yttrium oxide as a dopant, and (Table 1 example 10) a niobium titanium oxide having Y = 0.05, and a retention rate of 92% after 100 cycles. Regarding example 10, the ratio of the atomic weight of Y to the total atomic weight of Ti and Nb is 0.05/(2.05 + 0.9) = 0.0169, which is just above the claimed range. Harada ‘543 teaches ([0202]) that the monoclinic composite oxides of examples 1-14 have good volume resistivities compared to un-doped Nb2TiO7. (Comparative example 1)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to further modify the niobium titanium composite oxide of modified Inagaki with the Y dopant in order to provide a battery having an optimal retention rate and the electrode with good volume resistivity, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. The person on ordinary skill would further be motivated to optimize the amount of the dopant in order to further improve volume resistivity, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Inagaki in view of Harada ‘343 and Harada ‘543 teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Inagaki is silent on wherein the titanium-niobium oxide further comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Y, La, Ce, Pr, and Sm; and wherein a ratio of a total atomic weight of Al, Y, La, Ce, Pr, and Sm to a total atomic weight of Ti and Nb is equal to or more than 0.001 but equal to or less than 0.011;
Harada ‘543 teaches [0202] a similar monoclinic composite oxide and teaches [0019] a general formula Lix(Nb1-yTay)2 +0.5z Ti1-zM0.5z O7 (0≤x≤5, 0
≤
y≤1, and 0<z≤1), this encompasses the claimed range. At [0171] Harada ‘543 discloses the use yttrium oxide as a dopant, and (Table 1 example 10) a niobium titanium oxide having Y = 0.05, and a retention rate of 92% after 100 cycles. Regarding example 10, the ratio of the atomic weight of Y to the total atomic weight of Ti and Nb is 0.05/(2.05 + 0.9) = 0.0169, which is just above the claimed range. Harada ‘543 teaches ([0202]) that the monoclinic composite oxides of examples 1-14 have good volume resistivities compared to un-doped Nb2TiO7. (Comparative example 1)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to further modify the niobium titanium composite oxide of modified Inagaki with the Y dopant in order to provide a battery having an optimal retention rate and the electrode with good volume resistivity, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. The person on ordinary skill would further be motivated to optimize the amount of the dopant in order to further improve volume resistivity, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16. Inagaki in view of Harada ‘343 and Harada ‘543 teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Inagaki further teaches wherein a portion of a surface of the titanium-niobium oxide is coated with a carbon material. ([0090] “carbon material phase formed on at least part of the surface”)
Regarding claim 17, Inagaki in view of Harada ‘343 and Harada ‘543 teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and further teaches wherein at least a portion of the electrode active material is the titanium-niobium oxide according to claim 10, as set forth above. ([0106-0107]; [0122] “negative electrode layer … 70% to 96% by mass.”)
Regarding claim 18, Harada ‘346 teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and further teaches ([0106-0107] battery) a lithium-ion secondary cell comprising: a cathode and an anode; wherein one of the cathode and anode is the electrode according to claim 17, as set forth 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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/15/2025