ACTIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 3/17/2026:
Claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been partially withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been modified due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “Yoshida et al. teaches away from a mixture of a lithium titanium oxide and a mixed niobium oxide.
In response to the Patent Office's comments in paragraphs 8-9 of the office action, Yoshida et al. actively disparages the mixtures exemplified in comparative examples 4-6, stating the following (Yoshida et al., paragraph 37) (emphasis added):
"The electrode according to the first embodiment [i.e., having the claimed bilayer structure] can exhibit superior safety to an electrode that only includes, as an electrode mixture layer containing an active material, an electrode mixture layer containing a mixture of the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide and the lithium titanate having the spinel structure... On the other hand, in the electrode that only includes the electrode mixture layer containing the mixture of the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide and lithium titanate having the spinel-type structure, while lithium titanate having the spinel structure can be insulated at the time of the foregoing accident or the like, the electrode mixture layer can hardly become a perfect insulating material since the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide and lithium titanate having the spinel structure are contained in the same mixture layer."
The Examiner respectfully traverses. As stated in previous Action, MPEP 2123 I states: "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).” Further, MPEP 2123 II states: Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Further, the results of comparative examples 4-6 are not drastically different than those of examples 1-3. For example, example 1 has a capacity retention ratio of 85% whereas comparative examples 4 and 5 have capacity retention ratios of 85% and 88% respectively.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the reference of Zhang have been considered but are moot based on grounds of new rejection necessitated by amendment. The reference of Zhang (US 2020/0152963 A1) has been removed due to amendment of claim 1.
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, 4, 7-9, 11-12, 15-17, 21-23, 25-26, and 28-31 are being 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 the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation M1 is selected from one or more of P, B, Ti, Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, K, Ni, Co, Al, Si, Hf, Ta, and Zn and the claim also recites via new amendment wherein M1 comprises at least one of B, Ti, Mg, Cr, Zr, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, K, Ni, Co, Al, Si, Hf, and Zn which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 28 recites the broad recitation M1 is selected from one or more of P, B, Ti, Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, K, Ni, Co, Al, Si, Hf, Ta, and Zn and the claim also recites via new amendment wherein M1 comprises at least one of Ti, Zr, Ge, Si, and Hf which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because 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 of the claims.
Claim 22 discloses the active electrode material has a crystal structure of the mixed niobium oxide and proceeds to list compounds that only show one (M1 or M2) non-niobium metal. The Applicant has amended claim 1 (from which claim 22 depends) to indicate that M1 and M2 must be present. The Applicant must explain this discrepancy and how it is commensurate within the scope of the claim from which it depends.
Claims 30 and 31 disclose the mixed niobium oxide corresponds to the structure Zn2Nb34O87. However, this correlates to x=0 which goes against the limit in claim 1 (from which claims 30 and 31 depend) that claims x satisfies 0<x<0.5. The Applicant must explain this discrepancy and how it is commensurate within the scope of the claim from which it depends.
Claims 3, 4, 7-9, 11-12, 15-17, 21, 23, and 29 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 15-17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2016/0276663 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 109 904 441).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 22, 28, and 29, Yoshida et al. teach an active electrode material comprising a mixture of (a) at least one lithium titanium oxide and (b) at least one mixed niobium oxide (Abstract; Example 1 discloses preparation of an electrode mixture comprising Li4Ti5O12 and a niobium-titanium composite oxide.). Further, Yoshida et al. teach the formula of the niobium-titanium composite oxide is LiaTiMbNb2±βO7±σ wherein 0≦a≦5, 0≦b≦0.3, 0≦β≦0.3, and 0≦σ≦0.3 and M=Fe, V, Mo, or Ta (Paragraph 0038). Further, subscripts b and β in the general formula of the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide are variables each showing a degree to which a part of the sites of Ti and/or Nb in the niobium-titanium composite oxide is substituted by the metal element M. A subscript σ in the general formula of the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide is a variable showing a charge compensation associated with substitution by the metal M and/or an inevitable deviation from a stoichiometric ratio (Paragraph 0039). However, Yoshida et al. neither teach wherein the mixed niobium oxide has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure and/or a tetragonal tungsten bronze crystal structure nor do they teach wherein the mixed niobium oxide is expressed by the formula [M1]x[M2](1-x)[Nb]y[O]z, wherein:
M1 and M2 are different; M1 is selected from one or more of P, B, Ti, Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Si, Hf, Ta, and Zn; wherein M1 comprises at least one of B, Ti, Mg, Cr, Zr, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, K, Ni, Co, Al, Si, Hf, and Zn;
M2 is selected from one or more of P, Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Ga, Ge, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, and Zn; and wherein
x satisfies 0<x<0.5;
y satisfies 0.5≤y≤49;
z satisfies 4≤z≤124.
Zhang et al. teach an active anode material comprising the formula MxTi2+xy-5xNb10+x(4-y)O29 wherein 0<x≤10, 0<y≤5, 2+xy-5x≥0, 10+x(4-y)≥0 (Abstract; Paragraph 0011). M is one or any combination of Mg, Zn, Cu, Fe, Ga, Al, Ni, Mn, Co, Cr, Ca, Ge, Zr, Ti, Sr, Sn, Pb, V, Ta, Bi, Ba, Ni, Nb, Hg, Mo, and W (Paragraph 0012). Further, the element M1 and the element M2 are identical or different from each other) which read on the claimed elements and stoichiometric contents claimed. For instance, Zhang reads on Ti=M1 as claimed and can read on M2=W as claimed. Therefore, the oxidation states of Ti can range from +2 to +4 and W can be +6 reading on claims 3 and 4. The crystal structure is a sheared ReO3 structure (Paragraph 0013) which is a Wadsley-Roth structure.
If x=0.4, and y=1, then the formula in Zhang will correspond to M0.4Ti0.4Nb11.2O29 which reads on the claimed formula.
Further, if x=1 and y=3, the formula corresponds to MNb11O29 which can correspond to AlNb11O29 in claim 22.
Finally, M1=Ti, and M2=Zr, Ga, Ge, Al and Zn reading on claims 28 and 29.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida with Zhang in order to improve specific capacity, coulomb efficiency, and cycle performance.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Yoshida et al. teach the ratio by mass of (a):(b) ranges from 0.5:99.5 to 99.5:0.5 (See Table 2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Zhang et al. teach M1x(Al, Ga)(1-x)Nb11O(29-29α) (If x=0.4, and y=1, then the formula of MxTi2+xy-5xNb10+x(4-y)O29 wherein 0<x≤10, 0<y≤5, 2+xy-5x≥0, 10+x(4-y)≥0 will correspond to M0.4Ti0.4Nb11.2O29 which reads on the claimed formula.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida with Zhang in order to improve specific capacity, coulomb efficiency, and cycle performance.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Yoshida et al. teach wherein the lithium titanium oxide is in particulate form, optionally wherein the lithium titanium oxide has a D50 particle diameter in the range of 0.1-50 µm (Claim 6 discloses 0.1-30 µm.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Yoshida et al. teach wherein the mixed niobium oxide is in particulate form, optionally wherein the mixed niobium oxide has a D50 particle diameter in the range of 0.1-100 µm (Claim 7 discloses 1 nm to 10 µm.).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Yoshida et al. teach wherein the lithium titanium oxide and the mixed niobium oxide are in particulate form and wherein the ratio of the D5o particle diameter of the lithium titanium oxide to the D5o particle diameter of the mixed niobium oxide is in the range of 0.01:1 to 0.9:1 (Claim 6 discloses the lithium titanate has a particle size of 0.1-30 µm: claim 7 discloses the niobium titanium oxide has a particle size of 1 nm to 10 µm. The ratio of these two sizes reads on the claimed limitation.).
Regarding claim 23¸ the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Yoshida et al. teach wherein the lithium titanium oxide and/or the mixed niobium oxide further comprises lithium and/or sodium (Claim 2 discloses the formula of the niobium-titanium composite oxide is LiaTiMbNb2±βO7±σ wherein 0≦a≦5 so therefore the mixed niobium oxide can comprise lithium.).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Yoshida et al. teach an electrode comprising the active material is in electrical contact with a current collector (Paragraph 0245).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. Further, Yoshida et al. teach an electrochemical device comprising an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the anode comprises an active electrode material of claim 1 (Claim 11).
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2016/0276663 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 109 904 441) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada et al. (US 2019/0088941 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the lithium titanium oxide comprises a coating or wherein the mixed niobium oxide is coated with carbon.
Harada et al. teach an anode active material for a battery (Abstract) that can comprise lithium titanate (Paragraph 0149) and/or niobium titanium composite oxides (Paragraphs 0151-0152) having a carbon coating (Paragraph 0153).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida and Zhang with Harada to include a carbon coating on their anode materials in order to suppress contact resistance between the active material and the current collector.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2016/0276663 A1) and Zhang et al. (CN 109 904 441) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergner et al. (J. Solid State Chem., 182, (2009), 2053-2060).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yoshida and Zhang et al. teach the active electrode material according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the mixed niobium oxide is oxygen deficient.
Bergner discloses VNb9O25-δ (Abstract) for use in electrochemical applications (Introduction). VNb9O25-δ represents preferred localization of oxygen vacancies around vanadium sites (Section 3.5, page 2059, left column). Further, δ is 0-0.4 (Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yoshida, Ise, and Zhu with Bergner in order to improve electrical conductivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 26th, 2026
Prosecution Insights