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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN111276734A (using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamamoto US20090264571A1 and Charoonsuk, Thitirat, et al. "AC conductivity and dielectric properties of lepidocrocite-type alkali titanate tunable by interlayer cation and intralayer metal." Inorganic Chemistry 59.21 (2020): 15813-15823 (hereafter referred to as Charoonsuk-2020).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a titanic acid-based solid electrolyte material made of a titanate (Wang, [0029], K1-x/2MgxTi2-xO4, 0 < x < 2) having a structure in which a plurality of host layers are laid one on top of another (Wang, [0029]), the host layer being formed so that octahedra each formed of a titanium atom coordinated with six oxygen atoms are two-dimensionally chained while sharing ridges (Wang, [0029]) and alkali metal ions are intercalated in interlayers between the host layers (Wang, [0030]) titanium sites in the host layers being partially substituted by cations with valences of +1 to +3 (Wang, [0030]). Wang does not disclose lithium ions are intercalated in interlayers between the host layers.
Yamamoto teaches a titanic acid-based material (Yamamoto, [0027]) wherein monovalent ions, such as art known lithium ions, are intercalated in interlayers between the host layers (Yamamoto, [0020], formula (1), AxMy□Ti2−(y+z)O4, A and M each denote different metals of monovalence to trivalence, and □ denotes a defect cite of Ti and wherein x is a positive real number satisfying 0<x<1.0, y and z are each 0 or positive real numbers satisfying 0<y+z<1.0, A is a metal with a valence number of monovalence to trivalence…). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the alkali metal ion of Wang with that of Yamamoto, thereby improving production environment (Yamamoto, [0067]). Modified Wang does not explicitly teach a lepidocrocite titanate.
Charoonsuk-2020 teaches lepidocrocite titanate (Charoonsuk-2020, abstract, K0.8M0.4Ti1.6O4) can be used as solid electrolyte material (Charoonsuk-2020, p. 15814, bottom of first column and top of second column). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lepidocrocite titanate of Charoonsuk-2020 in Wang as modified by Yamamoto, thereby having a lower activation energy (Ea) (Charoonsuk-2020, abstract).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang further teaches wherein a content of the lithium ions present in the interlayers between the host layers (Yamamoto, [0020], Ax, A = Li+) is not less than 45% by mole and not more than 100% by mole relative to 100% by mole of ions present in the interlayers between the host layers (Yamamoto, [0020], 0<x<1.0, 0 to 100 mole %).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang does not teach being at least one of a compound represent by general formula (1) below and a compound represented by general formula (2) below:
LixMIyTi1.73O3.7-4*nH2O … formula (1)
where MI represents an alkali metal except lithium, the index x is 0.3 to 1.0, the index y is 0 to 0.4, and the index n is 0 to 2, and
LixMIyMIIzTi1.6O3.7-4*nH2O … formula (2)
where MI represents an alkali metal except lithium, MII represents an alkaline earth metal, the index x is 0.3 to 1.0, the index y is 0 to 0.4, and the index n is 0 to 2.
Yamamoto teaches being at least one of a compound represent by general formula (2) LixMIyMIIzTi1.6O3.7-4*nH2O … formula (2)
where MI represents an alkali metal except lithium, MII represents an alkaline earth metal, the index x is 0.3 to 1.0, the index y is 0 to 0.4, and the index n is 0 to 2 (Yamamoto, [0020-0021], AxMy□Ti2−(y+z)O4, A is a metal with a valence number of monovalence to trivalence, such as Li+, M is a metal with a valence number of monovalence to trivalence, which is different from the metal A, preferably at least one selected from Mg, 0<x<1.0, y and z are each 0 or positive real numbers satisfying 0<y+z<1.0, where n = 0). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the compound of Wang with that of Yamamoto, thereby improving production environment (Yamamoto, [0067]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN111276734A (using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamamoto US20090264571A1 and Charoonsuk-2020 (see above for full citation) and further in view of Wei CN102161504A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang does not teach wherein an interlayer distance between the host layers is not less than 5 Å and not more than 10 Å.
Wei teaches a titanic acid-based material (Wei, [0017]) and wherein an interlayer distance between the host layers is not less than 5 Å and not more than 10 Å (Wei, [0017], 0.7 nm). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer distance of modified Wang with that of Wei, thereby reducing the diffusion distance of lithium ions intercalating and deintercalating into the titanic acid-based material (Wei, [0017]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN111276734A (using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamamoto US20090264571A1, Charoonsuk-2020 (see above for full citation) and Wei CN102161504A (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ogawa US20030147804A1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the lepidocrocite titanate contains crystallization water.
Ogawa teaches wherein the lepidocrocite titanate comprises water-containing titania (Ogawa, [0029]) and wherein water is used as a solvent to form the lepidocrocite material (Ogawa, [0063]), satisfying the claim limitation wherein the lepidocrocite titanate contains crystallization water as there is no teaching of a dehydrating step. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lepidocrocite titanate contains crystallization water of Ogawa in modified Wang thereby exhibiting extremely stable heat resistance (Ogawa, [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wang teaches away from lithium. This is not persuasive. While Wang discloses “These factors will limit the future development of lithium batteries in areas such as electric vehicles and large-scale energy storage grid systems. From the perspective of reducing material costs, it is very important to develop new energy storage systems that can replace lithium-ion batteries.” (Wang, [0004]), Wang does not teach away from the known solution of lithium, as Wang does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. The Courts have held that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004), See MPEP § 2145.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The presently claimed invention enables provision of a titanic acid-based solid electrolyte material free from risk of production of hydrogen sulfide, free of rare earth, and having good lithium-ion conductivity.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues “There is nothing in Wang that would urge one skilled in the art to combine with Yamamoto as alleged. Furthermore, based on the disclosure in Wang, it can be argued the reference activity teaches away from the alleged modification.” This is not persuasive because the statements are conclusory and applicant has not particularly pointed out what specifically is wrong with the assertions and fact finding as set forth in the above rejections. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. The Courts have held that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP § 2145.
In response to applicant's argument that Charoonsuk-2020 does not bodily incorporate the limitation wherein lithium ions are intercalated in interlayers between the host layers, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qi CN111276735A (discloses a substantially similar solid electrolyte material, but comprising K ions).
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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights