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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/03/2025, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 16 is/are amended; claim(s) 12–15 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 4, 7, 8, and 10 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/03/2025, has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, and 11–16 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In this case, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “three or more of the recessed parts satisfy … 0.1 ≤ a/L ≤ 0.5” (lines 10–12), and the claim also recites “all the ratios a/L of the recessed parts … fall within a range of from 0.1 to 0.5” (lines 17 and 18), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) is considered indefinite because, upon further consideration, there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature.
Tables 1 and 3, Ex. 1–17, detail a/L values all falling within 0.1 to 0.5. Moreover, Applicant amended from the general “three or more of the recessed parts satisfy … 0.1 ≤ a/L ≤ 0.5” to the narrower “all the ratios a/L of the recessed parts … fall within a range of from 0.1 to 0.5” (see claims filed 08/14/2025), and, thus, the intended scope appears to be the narrower limitation. Thus, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require at least three recessed parts in the single particle, where all recessed parts must satisfy an a/L of 0.1 to 0.5, which appears consistent with the intended scope.
Claim 1 further recites “the electrode satisfies the following formula (2)” (line 19). As claim 1 recites “A secondary battery comprising a positive and a negative electrode” (lines 1 and 2), it is unclear which electrode “the electrode” references.
¶ 0044 and Tables 1 and 3 (Ex. 1–17) describe that the electrode containing the instant single-particle active material satisfies instant formula (2). Thus, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require that the electrode including the single-particle active material satisfies instant formula (2), consistent with ¶ 0044 and the working examples.
Claim 9 recites that “the electrode has an electrode density …” in line 2. As parent claim 1 recites “A secondary battery comprising a positive and a negative electrode” (lines 1 and 2), it is unclear which electrode “the electrode” references.
¶ 0099 and Tables 1 and 3 (Ex. 1, 2, and 4–18) detail that the electrode including the instant active material has an electrode density of 2.3–3 g/cm3. Thus, for this Office Action claim 9 will be interpreted to require that the electrode including claim 1’s active material has an electrode density of 2.3–3 g/cm3, consistent with ¶ 0099 and the working examples.
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–3, 5, 6, 9, and 11–16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 20190296342 A1) (Harada) as evidenced by Yoshimura et al. (Simple Quantification Method for Grain Shape of Granular Materials Such as Sand) (Yoshimura).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, and 14–16, Harada discloses a vehicle comprising a mechanism configured to convert kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy (e.g., ¶ 0028, 0208), the vehicle comprising a battery pack (e.g., ¶ 0028) comprising a secondary battery (e.g., Title, ¶ 0026) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte (¶ 0026), wherein the negative electrode is the electrode comprising an active material (e.g., ¶ 0026) comprising particles containing a niobium-containing oxide (niobium-titanium composite oxide primary particles, ¶ 0024) containing a crystal phase of Nb2TiO7 (e.g., Ex. 3, Table 1) and having an average particle size D50 of 4.3 μm (Id.), falling within 0.3–20 μm.
Harada further discloses that the primary particles exhibit surface roughnesses (¶ 0036) and, particularly, a roughness shape coefficient FU of preferably 0.50–0.65 (¶ 0039), disclosing in ¶ 0079 that this coefficient is defined in Simple Quantification Method for Grain Shape of Granular Materials Such as Sand (Yoshimura above). Specifically, as seen below in sample (d)—aligning with the final description in the table underneath the figure—Yoshimura evidences that particles with FU < 0.65 exhibit many recessed parts (see table and figure on Yoshimura’s p. 100, left col.). Further, the sides of each recess appear to further define “protruded parts” because they protrude relative to the recesses, similar to instant fig. 1. Thus, per fig. 1(d), Harada reasonably discloses at least one single particle with protruded parts as well as at least three recessed parts.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harada discloses that the roughnesses/recesses afford high porosity for Li+ insertion and volume-expansion accommodation from the particles’ lattice constant’s expanding/contracting during (dis)charge (¶ 0036).
The skilled artisan would recognize, then, that the dimensions of the recesses—reflected by instant formula (1)’s depth/length ratio—must be large enough to properly intercalate Li+ and accommodate volume change, while making the dimensions too large would necessarily reduce active-material content and, thus, capacity and energy density given that the recesses necessitate less active material compared to a perfectly spherical particle. Although Harada fails to explicitly disclose that all the recessed parts satisfy instant formula (1), considering that Harada is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrodes with niobium titanate active material, to balance the above effects, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing each of the recesses’ lengths and depths (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the electrode’s satisfying instant formula (2) of n/N, Harada discloses a virtually identical electrode preparation method (dispersing a mixture of 10 parts acetylene black and 100 parts active material, mixing the dispersion with 10 parts PVDF based on 100 parts of active material to produce a slurry, blade-coating the slurry onto Al foil, vacuum-drying at 130°C for 12 h, and roll-pressing to an electrode density of 2.3 g/cm3 in ¶ 0239 and Table 1’s Ex. 3) compared to the instant specification (¶ 0222). One skilled in the art, then, would have reasonably expected Harada’s electrode to display an n/N ratio falling within or at least overlapping the recited 0.01–0.5 (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of selecting a suitable number of active particles (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
More importantly, though, Harada discloses that the active material affords the battery rapid (dis)charge and long life characteristics (¶ 0036). Harada further discloses, meanwhile, that the binder (PVDF above) fills gaps among the dispersed active material and binds such to the current collector (¶ 0059), while the conductive agent (acetylene black above) improves current-collection performance and suppresses contact resistance between the active material and current collector (¶ 0058). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant ratio by routinely optimizing the content and, thus, number of particles of each of the active material, binder, and conductive agent—and, therefore, necessarily optimize the number of single particles (active material) “n” relative to the total number of particles “N” within a given region of the electrode (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on or renders obvious the following:
(claim 2) the particles containing the niobium-containing oxide have an average particle size (D50) of 4.3 μm (Ex. 3, Table 1), falling within 0.5–6 μm;
(claim 16) in optimizing claim 1’s length/depth ratio to balance Li+ insertion/volume-expansion accommodation with suitable capacity/energy density, the recited length appears further achievable through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, Harada renders obvious the active material according to claim 1, wherein a content of the particles containing the niobium-containing oxide is 100% by weight (per ¶ 0237–0239, the Nb-Ti composite constitutes 100 wt% of the active material; see also ¶ 0044), which falls within 75–100 wt%.
Regarding claim 5, Harada renders obvious the active material according to claim 1, wherein the niobium-containing oxide is a monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide (monoclinic Nb2TiO7, ¶ 0046).
Regarding claim 6, Harada renders obvious the active material according to claim 1, further comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium titanate having a ramsdellite structure, lithium titanate having a spinel structure, monoclinic titanium dioxide, anatase titanium dioxide, rutile titanium dioxide, a hollandite titanium composite oxide, and an orthorhombic titanium-containing composite oxide (¶ 0053; see also TiO2 phase—which, per ¶ 0008 and 0053, would seemingly be either monoclinic, anatase, or rutile—in Ex. 3, Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Harada renders obvious the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the electrode has an electrode has an electrode density of 2.3 g/cm3 (Ex. 3, Table 1), which falls within 2.3–3 g/cm3.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Harada renders obvious the battery pack according to claim 11, further comprising an external power distribution terminal (¶ 0185); and a protective circuit (¶ 0184), wherein the battery pack includes a plurality of the secondary battery (by including battery module with plural cells, ¶ 0176 and 0183); and the secondary batteries are electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series and parallel (¶ 0177, 0191).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 103 rejection and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing Harada (note that the new reference is Harada ‘342 as opposed to the previous Harada ‘345) as evidenced by Yoshimura, as established above. As most of Applicant’s arguments pertain to the previous Harada ‘345’s preparation method compared to the instant disclosure’s, these arguments are now moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments applicable to the new references as follows:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previous Harada ‘345, by not cooling the particles after first main firing, could not achieve the instant n/N by omitting the step of cooling to room temperature after first main firing, the new Harada ‘342, in disclosing a substantially similar particle-preparation method as Harada ‘345 while including this cooling step, as well as a virtually identical electrode-preparation method as the instant specification’s, would appear to be able to achieve the instant n/N. More importantly, though, as discussed above, one of ordinary skill would understand that a compromise necessarily exists between each of the (single-particle) active material, conductive material, and binder in the electrode, where each component must be included in an amount sufficient to perform its respective function without detracting from the other components’ effects. In accounting for each effect, then, the instant n/N appears achievable by routine experimentation.
Turning to Applicant’s allegedly unexpected results based on the a/L and n/N ratios, Examiner initially respectfully reiterates that Harada’s roughened surfaces—corresponding to a/L, as outlined above—increase the electrode’s porosity for Li+ insertion and volume-change accommodation to achieve rapid (dis)charge and long-life characteristics (¶ 0036), which appears substantially similar to the instant specification’s effect (e.g., ¶ 0038; compare also Harada’s similar 0.2C discharge capacities and cycle-retention rates—specifically, e.g., Exs. 5a and 6—in Table 1 to instant Tables 2 and 4’s results). Thus, it is unclear that Applicant’s results are unexpected.
Additionally, Examiner respectfully notes that Comp. Ex. 4 includes a/L values all falling within the instant 0.1–0.5 (Table 3) yet exhibits the lowest capacity retention (Table 4), making it unclear that the instant a/L is truly critical to achieving unexpectedly superior results. Arguendo, if Applicant posits that Comp. Ex. 4’s poorer performance is due to the n/N of 0, it is also unclear that claim 1’s n/N of 0.01–0.5 is truly critical. MPEP 716.02(d) requires criticality demonstrations to test both within and outside the range—i.e., above and below the range—and although Comp. Ex. 4’s n/N of 0 is below 0.01–0.5, it is unclear if this example’s performance is due to the incorrect a/L, incorrect n/N, both, or some other factor(s). Moreover, in the other examples that test n/N outside 0.01–0.5 (Exs. 17 and 18 with n/N 0.008 and 0.51, respectively), such are considered inventive examples and, thus, display relatively improved performance over the comparative examples.
Further assuming, arguendo, that Exs. 17 and 18 were considered comparative examples relative to Exs. 1–16, it is still unclear that claim 1’s n/N, in combination with a/L, is critical. For instance, Ex. 16 includes a/L and n/N within each respectively recited range, but the 0.2C discharge capacity is the third-lowest of Exs. 1–18 (and lower than Exs. 17 and 18’s).
Nonetheless, arguendo, if the results were unexpectedly superior, it appears that a/L and n/N are critical only at certain values of other parameters. For instance, Exs. 3 and 10–12 appear to be Applicant’s best-performing examples (see Table 2), but, in each of these examples, a/L and n/N are narrower than claim 1’s ranges (see 0.17~0.37 for a/L and 0.018~0.38 for n/N in Table 1).
Similarly, the following confounding parameters appear to contribute to the results but are unbounded in claim 1:
The electrode density is unbounded in claim 1, whereas the spec.’s ¶ 0099 prefers 2–3 g/cm3, more preferably 2.3–3 g/cm3 (as also seen in Table 2); as the spec.’s ¶ 0099 indicates that this density improves rapid (dis)charge and life performance—and, thus, (dis)charge capacity/capacity retention—by improving electrolyte permeability without excessive fine-particle intrusion, it is unclear if the results would occur for any density.
The crystallite size of the particles containing the niobium-containing oxide is unbounded in claim 1, whereas the spec.’s ¶ 0061 prefers 50–200 nm and, more preferably, 80–120 nm (as also seen in Tables 1 and 3); as the spec.’s ¶ 0061 indicates that this range improves Li+ conductivity to improve (dis)charge efficiency and rate performance, it is unclear if the results would occur for any nano-crystallite size.
The D50 of the particles containing the niobium-containing oxide is 0.3–20 μm in claim 1, but the spec.’s ¶ 0059 prefers 0.5–6 μm and, more preferably, 0.5–2 μm (as also seen in Tables 1 and 3); as the spec.’s ¶ 0059 indicates that this range improves the life performance as well as rapid-(dis)charge performance, it is unclear if the results would occur across claim 1’s broader range.
Claim 1 allows any type of electrolyte, whereas the results are clearly tailored to liquid-based or liquid-containing electrolytes (as seen in a/L ratio’s reflecting electrolytic wetting and retention, e.g., ¶ 0038; see also ¶ 0125–0130 and 0242); it is unclear if the results would occur when using, e.g., a purely solid electrolyte.
Thus, as it appears that the results are still incommensurate with claim 1, per MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is further unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/24/2026