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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10-11, 13-15, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US-20170288205-A1) in view of Takami et al (US-20070009794-A1) and Inagaki et al. (US-20100255352-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 2, 13-14 and 31, Inoue with the following modification in view of Takami and Inagaki teaches:
A method of charging and/or discharging an electrochemical cell (charging and discharging the wound secondary battery, see [0173]),
wherein the electrochemical cell comprises a working electrode having a surface layer of niobium-containing metal oxide disposed on a secondary active electrode material (a niobium oxide film 102 covers the negative electrode active material 101, see [0088]-[0089] and Fig. 1A),
Inoue is silent toward:
and wherein the method comprises charging the electrochemical cell at a C rate of 5 C.
(per Claim 13),wherein the method comprises, discharging electrochemical cell at a C rate of at least 5C.
(per Claim 14) wherein the method comprises a cycle of charging and discharging, or discharging and charging the electrochemical cell.
(per Claim 2 and 31) wherein the temperature of the electrochemical cell is 50°C or more, or the temperature of the electrochemical cell is 5°C or less.
To solve the same problem of analyzing a battery (see [0075]), Takami teaches evaluating charge-discharge cycle life of a secondary battery by the following method:
and wherein the method comprises charging the electrochemical cell at a C rate of 5 C (charging the battery at a rate of 10C, see [0170] ).
(per Claim 13),wherein the method comprises, discharging electrochemical cell at a C rate of at least 5C (discharging the battery at 5C, see [0170]).
(per Claim 14) wherein the method comprises a cycle of charging and discharging, or discharging and charging the electrochemical cell (charge-discharge cycle testing was performed until the capacity retention ratio was lowered to 80%, see [0170]).
(per Claim 2 and 31) wherein the temperature of the electrochemical cell is 50°C or more, or the temperature of the electrochemical cell is 5°C or less (the charge-discharge testing was performed at 60° C), see [0170].
Takami further teaches the evaluation method allows for batteries to be tested for the requirements of vehicle battery applications of being able to be charged rapidly at high temperature, see [0009] and [0170].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have use the method taught by Takami given above to test the battery of Inoue in order to evaluate the rapid charging at high temperatures.
Inoue teaches the lower limit of the thickness of the oxide film is 5 nm (see [0089]) which is close to the claimed upper end point but outside of the claimed range. Therefore Inoue, does not teach:
wherein the layer of niobium-containing metal oxide has a maximum thickness of 4.5 nm or less.
To solve the same problem of designing an electrode active material with a coating that can suitably be a niobium oxide (see [0076] and Table 1), Inagaki teaches the thickness of the shell layer is suitably 1 to 100 nm, see [0022]. This teaches an overlapping coating thickness with the layer thickness claimed range.
Inagaki further teaches controlling the thickness to fall within the given range balances the considerations having the coating thick enough that decomposition of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution on the surface of the active material can be efficiently suppressed and thin enough to not impair the lithium ion charge/discharge ability, see [0022]. This disclosure teaches that the thickness of the shell is a result effective variable.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Additionally, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have optimized the thickness of the niobium based outer film of Inoue in order to balance the considerations of suppressing a side reaction from the electrolyte and not impairing the charge/discharge ability of the active material, based on the teachings of Inagaki.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed niobium-containing metal oxide layer with a “maximum thickness of 4.5 nm or less,” without undue experimentation.
Note, while the instant specification does support the range of 4.5 nm or less (see instant-spec Pg4/L35-36), and states, “thinner coatings of the niobium containing metal oxide are preferred as they have reduced impedance in comparison to thicker layers while maintaining the temperature stability of the electrode and mitigating SEI formation,” see Pg8/L26-29. However, the working examples in the instant specification is silent toward the thickness of the niobium containing metal oxide coating.
Regarding Claim 3, Inoue discloses a niobium oxide film 102 covers the negative electrode active material 101, see [0088]-[0089] and Fig. 1A.
Regarding Claim 8, Inoue discloses:
wherein the layer of niobium-containing metal oxide is disposed on a particle of the secondary active electrode material (see Fig. 1A-1B).
Regarding Claim 10 and 11, Inoue discloses graphite, a carbon material, is suitable for use as the negative electrode active material, see [0084].
Regarding Claim 15, Inoue in view of Takami teaches repeated charge-discharge cycle testing was performed until the capacity retention ratio was lowered to 80%, see Takami-[0170]. It is reasonable to conclude that the more than 2 cycles would run to reach this loss in capacity retention.
Regarding Claim 32, Inoue discloses adding a carbon conductive additive with the negative electrode active material, see [0110].
Claim(s) 7 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US-20170288205-A1) in view of Takami et al (US-20070009794-A1) and Inagaki et al. (US-20100255352-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Griffith et al. Nature 559.7715 (2018): 556-563.
Regarding Claim 7 and 33, Inoue exemplifies using niobium oxide (Nb2O5) as the oxide film covering a negative active electrode active material particle, see [0034]-[0035]. Inoue does not teach:
(per Claim 7) wherein the niobium-containing metal oxide is selected from a niobium tungsten oxide, a titanium niobium oxide, a niobium molybdenum oxide, a niobium vanadium oxide or combinations thereof.
(per Claim 33) wherein the niobium-containing metal oxide is a niobium tungsten oxide, niobium molybdenum oxide, or a combination thereof.
To solve the same problem of designing anode materials containing niobium, Griffith teaches niobium tungsten oxides (Nb16W5O55 and Nb18W16O93) have higher volumetric capacity at high charging rates compared to Nb2O5, see Fig. 5a.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used niobium tungsten oxide, taught by Griffith, instead of niobium oxide of Inoue in order to have higher volumetric capacity at high charging rates.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US-20170288205-A1) in view of Takami et al (US-20070009794-A1) and Inagaki et al. (US-20100255352-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and, alternatively, in further view of Kuriki et al (US-20160268598-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, it this the Examiners position that because the Inoue teaches an active material layer that has niobium oxide and electrode active material (see [0088]-[0089] and Fig. 1A) the art can be interpreted to have an outer layer of the electrode which comprises niobium oxide and an inner layer which comprises the active material, therefore, teaching:
wherein the layer of niobium-containing metal oxide is disposed on a film of the secondary active electrode material.
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Inoue does not teach:
wherein the layer of niobium-containing metal oxide is disposed on a film of the secondary active electrode material.
To solve the same problem of designing an negative electrode (see [0021]), Kuriki teaches providing a niobium oxide layer on an active material layer, see [0009]-[0010] and Fig. 1. Kuriki further teaches the niobium oxide layer aids in forming a stable inorganic solid electrolyte interface which reduces the resistance, improves in lithium diffusivity, and suppresses volume expansion of the active material layer.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disposed a layer of niobium oxide, taught by Kuriki, on the negative electrode layer of Inoue in order to form a stable inorganic solid electrolyte interface.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US-20170288205-A1) in view of Takami et al (US-20070009794-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Lim et al. ACS Nano 9.7 (2015): 7497-7505.
Regarding Claim 34, Inoue is silent toward:
wherein the method comprises charging and/or discharging an electrochemical cell at a current density of at least 750 mAg-1
To solve the same problem of providing an anode comprising niobium oxide (see ), Lim teaches a method of evaluating charging and discharging at increased current densities form 0.05 to 5 A g-1 in order to understand power loss from differences in rate capabilities, see Pg7501/C(right)/second to last sentence, Fig. S7, and Pg7502/C(left)/last paragraph- Pg7502/C(right)/first sentence.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have analyzed the charge and discharge at increased current densities up to 5 A g-1, taught by Lim, for the negative electrode of Inoue to understand power loss from differences in rate capabilities.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see 6-8, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 7-15, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Inagaki et al. (US-20100255352-A1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721