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 I (claims 1-7 and 19) in the reply filed on Dec 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Dec 22, 2025.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al “TiO2 Microboxes with Controlled Internal Porosity for High-Performance Lithium Storage,” Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 14331-14335.
Evidentiary support is provided by Chen et al “Facile hydrothermal synthesis of single crystalline TiOF2 nanocubes and their phase transitions to TiO2 hollow nanocages as anode materials for lithium-ion battery” Electrochimica Act 62 (2012) 408-415.
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches TiO2 hollow microboxes (p14332 left col para 4 and 14333 left col para 2; Fig. 3a-d) that are cube shaped (i.e., shape of hexahedrons) with a square outer cross section. The edges of the square outer cross-sections have sloping edges as seen in Figs 3b-d that read on chamfered corners. Fig. 3d shows that the cube is hollow, and the hollow area has a square cross section. Gao also teaches the TiO2 hollow microboxes as anode material provide active sites and a large electrolyte-electrode contact area for Li+ insertion and surface Li storage (p14334 left col para 2). The insertion of Li+ into the TiO2 results in a lithium metal oxide as claimed, as is supported by evidentiary reference Chen (p413 left col para 4 discloses “TiO2 + xLi’ + xe- [Wingdings font/0xE0] LixTiO2”). Gao discloses that the size of the TiO2 microboxes is than 1 µm, about 0.9 µm or 900 nm; therefore, they are nanoparticles (Fig. 3c-d and p14333 left col para 2).
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the nanoparticles have 0.1 µm shells (p14333 left col para 2), which correspond to a thickness of 100 nm of the lithium metal oxide on the hollow, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 and further teaches wherein a BET surface area of the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle may be 30.3 m2/g (p14333 left col para 1), which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Gao teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 and further teaches the size, corresponding to a length of the longest side of the nanoparticles, is about 0.9 µm or 900 nm (p14333 left col para 2, Fig. 3c-d).
Regarding claim 6, Gao teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1, and as pointed out earlier in addressing the limitations of claim 1, the insertion of Li+ into the TiO2 results in a lithium metal oxide, which would be a lithium titanium oxide (LTO), and accordingly, would read upon the limitation that wherein the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle is made from lithium titanium oxide.
Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1. The material is synthesized from a calcium-containing intermediate CaTiO3 having a hexahedron (cube) shape with a square outer cross section and comprises a hollow while the shape of the hexahedron is maintained, as seen in Fig. 1 (p14331 right col para 3 to p14332 left col para 1). The TiO2 nanoparticles made from the calcium-containing intermediate become lithium metal oxide nanoparticles with the insertion of Li+, therefore the lithium metal oxide is synthesized from the calcium-containing intermediate, and the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle is derived from lithium metal oxide as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Gao teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1. They further teach it is used for an anode material in lithium ion batteries which can be used for electric vehicles (p14333 right col para 1-3 bridging to p14334 left col para 1-2, p14331 left col para 1).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al “Facile hydrothermal synthesis of single crystalline TiOF2 nanocubes and their phase transitions to TiO2 hollow nanocages as anode materials for lithium-ion battery” Electrochimica Act 62 (2012) 408-415.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a hollow TiO2 nanocage (Abstract) which reacts with lithium upon the first discharging process as an electrode material to form lithium titanium oxide, a lithium metal oxide (p413 left col para 4 discloses “TiO2 + xLi’ + xe- [Wingdings font/0xE0] LixTiO2”). Chen shows in Fig. 3a-c nanocages with lengths of hundreds of nanometers and therefore correspond to nanoparticles. Fig. 3b-c of Chen also shows that the nanoparticle has a hexahedron shape with a square outer cross section or a hexahedron with at least one chamfered corner. Figs. 3c and 4 indicate the nanoparticle has a hollow of which a cross section is a square or a square having at least one chamfered corner.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1, and Chen teaches the cubes are about 200-300 nm in size, i.e. length (a) (p409 right col para 3) with a thickness of about 20-30 nm (p413 right col para 1), indicating a length (b) of about 170 nm to 280 nm. Accordingly, a ratio (a/b) according to this teaching would be about (300/280 or 200/180) to about 200/170, or 1.1 to about 1.2, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Additionally, Chen indicates in Fig. 3c (annotated version included below) an embodiment of a nanoparticle wherein a length (a) of a side of the outer cross section of the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle is about 340 nm, and the wall thickness is about 60 nm, resulting in a length (b) of one side of a square cross section of the hollow of about 340-60 nm, or 280 nm. The ratio (a/b) would correspondingly be 340/280, which is about 1.2.
Given that Chen teaches in Fig. 3c that the wall thickness can be about 60 nm, they additionally teach that the ratio (a/b) can be 200/140 to about 300/240 which corresponds to a range of about 1.3 to 1.4 which also overlap with the claimed range. Insertion of lithium into the titanium oxide nanocage results in the claimed lithium metal oxide nanoparticle, as previously discussed in addressing the limitations of claim 1.
Annotated Fig. 3c of Chen:
PNG
media_image1.png
419
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 and further teaches a width (thickness) of the lithium metal oxide on the hollow is about 20-30 nm (p413 right col para 1); alternatively, an embodiment in Fig. 3c shows a wall thickness of about 60 nm (annotated Fig. 3c). Accordingly, the taught thicknesses overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 and further teaches an outer diameter or a length of the longest side of the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle is about 200-300 nm in size, i.e. length (a) (p409 right col para 3). Chen also shows a specific embodiment wherein an outer diameter or a length of the longest side of the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle is about 340 nm (annotated Fig. 3c). The teachings of Chen overlap with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 and further teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle is lithium titanium oxide (LTO).
Regarding claim 19, Chen teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 and further teaches it can be used for an electrode for lithium-ion batteries (p414 right col para 2) and teaches lithium-ion batteries can be used for portable electronic devices and hybrid electric vehicles (p408 left col para 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al “Facile hydrothermal synthesis of single crystalline TiOF2 nanocubes and their phase transitions to TiO2 hollow nanocages as anode materials for lithium-ion battery” Electrochimica Act 62 (2012) 408-415.
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a BET surface area of the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle. However, they do teach that the hollow structure results in relatively large surface areas and much larger space that facilitate fast Li ion transport at the interface between the TiO2 nanocages and the electrolyte, and which consequently improves the capacity (p413 right col para 1); thus, the surface area of the lithium metal oxide nanoparticle is a result-effective variable. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the surface area of Chen’s lithium metal oxide nanoparticle to optimize the mass transfer of Li ion at the interface between the nanoparticle and the electrolyte, and consequently, the capacity, and would have arrived at the claimed BET surface area as a result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 03/12/2026