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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group (II) and species (a-i), claims 7-10 and 13-14, drawn to an electrode material in the reply filed on 05/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6, 11-12 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/20/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Figures 11(a) and 11(b)
Figures 21(a) and 21(b)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0007] – seems to be missing reference characters or mentions of the studies that are being discussed. Please include reference details and/or reference characters and please include the work referencing in an IDS.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 3 – amend “of nanostructured transition” to “of a nanostructured transition”.
Claims 8 and 13-14, line 1 – amend “the transition metal oxide” to “the nanostructured transition metal oxide” for consistency with the independent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (Investigation of Changes in the Surface Structure of LixNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 Cathode Materials Induced by the Initial Charge) (Hwang).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang discloses an investigation into the evolution of the surface structure of LixNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 cathode materials (NCA) (i.e., an electrode material). Hwang further discloses that the surface changes from the layered structure (space group R3̅m) to the disordered spinel structure (Fd3̅m) (i.e., amorphous nanostructured transition metal oxide), and eventually to the rock-salt structure (Fm3̅m) (i.e., rock-salt transition metal oxide), and the changes are more substantial as the extent of the charge increases (Hwang, Abstract).
Hwang further discloses the positive electrodes of LixNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 were electrochemically delithiated to half-charged (x=0.5) and overcharged (x=0.1) state at a rate of C/10 using a galvanostatic condition (i.e., constant current) (Hwang, Experimental Section, lines 1-4). Hence, it is clear that the rock-salt LixNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 was formed electrochemically by transitioning from a disordered spinel structure (i.e., amorphous) which was formed electrochemically by the layered structure of LixNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (i.e., nanostructured transition metal oxide).
Claims 7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (A disordered rock salt anode for fast charging lithium-ion batteries) (Liu).
Regarding claim 7 and 13, Liu discloses a disordered rock salt (DRS) Li3+xV2O5 used as a fast-charging anode (i.e., an electrode) that can reversibly cycle two lithium ions at an average voltage of about 0.6 V vs. Li/Li+ (Liu, Abstract, lines 4-7).
Liu further disclosing the DRS-Li3+xV2O5 was synthesized by electrochemically lithiating V2O5 to 1.5 V (i.e., a rock-salt transition metal oxide formed from an electrochemically-driven transformation) (Liu, p. 68, left Col., lines 35-36). Liu further disclosing Figures 1d-f show the bulk of DRS-Li3+xV2O5 is well crystallized and Fourier transform confirms the cubic rock salt structure (Liu, p. 64, left Col., lines 18-21; Fig. 1d-f). Thus, it is clear that Liu teaches an electrochemically-driven amorphous to-crystalline (a-to-c) transformation of V2O5 (i.e., a transition metal oxide comprising an oxide of group VB).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Given that the fast-charging anode of Liu is substantially identical to the electrode material as in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the fast-charging anode of Liu would inherently have wherein V2O5 has an energy difference between the rock-salt structure and the ground state structure of less than 110 meV/atom, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pralong et al. (Electrochemical Synthesis of a Lithium-Rich Rock-Salt-Type Oxide Li5W2O7 with Reversible Deintercalation Properties) (Pralong).
Regarding claim 7, Pralong discloses starting from a ribbon structure Li2W2O7, a lithium-rich phase Li5W2O7 with an ordered rock-salt-type structure was synthesized through a topotactic irreversible electrochemical reaction (i.e., a rock-salt transition metal oxide formed from an electrochemically-driven amorphous-to-crystalline transformation of a nanostructured transition metal oxide) (Pralong, Abstract). Pralong further disclosing the rock-salt-type structure of Li2W2O7 was obtained by using a ribbon structure Li2W2O7 positive electrode and cycling the electrochemical cell between 1.3 V and 3.0 V at different galvanostatic rates (Pralong, Electrochemical Synthesis and Characterization).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, while Hwang, Liu, and Pralong each teach the limitations of claim 7, Hwang, Liu, Pralong, or in combination do not disclose or suggest the transition metal oxide is niobium pentoxide and the rock-salt transition metal oxide is rock-salt niobium pentoxide and includes multi-electron redox per Nb for Li-ion storage.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8, which contains allowable subject matter. Therefore, claim 9 would also contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 10 depends on claim 8, which contains allowable subject matter. Therefore, claim 10 would also contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. Tienna M Deroy whose telephone number is (571)272-1097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8 am to 4 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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/T.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1732 /STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 8/8/25