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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 12/05/2025 have been entered, but do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action mailed 09/05/2025.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200303783-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sekiguchi’ in view of (US-20150303519-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hanazaki’, as evidenced by ‘Recent advances in titanium-based electrode materials for stationary sodium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Guo’
Regarding Claim 1,
Sekiguchi teaches an electrode material which is a precursor of an electrode, the electrode material comprising an active material-containing layer and a current collector on which the active material-containing layer is provided , the active material-containing layer comprising at least one of niobium titanium oxide or titanium dioxide (Sekiguchi, “The negative electrode active material includes one or two or more compounds selected from the group consisting of titanium oxide, lithium titanium oxide, and lithium titanium composite oxide. Examples of lithium titanium composite oxides include niobium titanium oxide and sodium niobium titanium oxide.”, [0053])(The examiner notes the Sekiguchi teaches titanium oxide the negative electrode but it can be also used as a positive electrode, as evidenced by ‘Guo’)
Sekiguchi does not teach wherein a moisture content of the electrode material measured by a Karl Fischer method is in a range of 2000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less.
Hanazaki teaches a Karl Fischer method is in a range of 2000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less ( Hanazaki, “A positive electrode having a moisture concentration of the positive electrode active material layer based on the Karl Fischer method (heating temperature: 300° C.) of 2100 ppm to 3400 ppm.”, see [0070])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range 2100ppm to 3400ppm overlaps the claimed range of 2000ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hanazaki teaches that this range is idea because if the moisture content is too high, the characteristics are negatively affected( Hanazaki, “However, the above-mentioned technology does not define the moisture concentration of a positive electrode. According to a study conducted by the inventor of the present invention, if the moisture concentration of the positive electrode is excessively high, for example, an excess of film is formed on the surface of the positive electrode and output characteristics may decrease. On the other hand, if the moisture concentration of the positive electrode is excessively low,”, see [0009])
Yoshima and Hanazaki are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material as taught in Sekiguchi to have a moisture content as taught in Hanazakiin order to reduce the interfacial resistance.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode material according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of carboxymethylcellulose or a carboxymethylcellulose salt (Sekiguchi, “Examples of a binder include polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), fluorocarbon rubber, ethylene-butadiene rubber, polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), carboxymethylcellulose (CMC),”, see [0067]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the moisture content is in a range of 3000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less (Hanazaki, “A positive electrode having a moisture concentration of the positive electrode active material layer based on the Karl Fischer method (heating temperature: 300° C.) of 2100 ppm to 3400 ppm.”, see [0070])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2100ppm to 3400ppm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 3000ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode material according to claim 2, wherein the moisture content is in a range of 3000 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less (Hanazaki, “A positive electrode having a moisture concentration of the positive electrode active material layer based on the Karl Fischer method (heating temperature: 300° C.) of 2100 ppm to 3400 ppm.”, see [0070])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2100ppm to 3400ppm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 3000ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the niobium titanium oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of niobium titanium oxide represented by the general formula LixTi1-yM1yNb2-zM2zO7+δ and niobium titanium oxide represented by the general formula LixTi1-yM3y+zNb2-zO7-δ, where M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Si, and Sn, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of V, Ta, and Bi, M3 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Fe, Ni, Co, W, Ta, and Mo, x satisfies 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, y satisfies 0 ≤ y < 1, z satisfies 0 ≤ z < 2, and δ satisfies -0.3 ≤δ≤ 0.3 (Sekiguchi, “Examples of niobium titanium oxide include LiaTiMbNb2±βO7±σ (0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β≤0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3, and M is at least one element selected from a group consisting of Fe, V, Mo, and Ta).”, see [0056]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β≤0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, y satisfies 0 ≤ y < 1, z satisfies 0 ≤ z < 2, and δ satisfies -0.3 ≤δ≤ 0.3. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode material according to claim 4, wherein the niobium titanium oxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of niobium titanium oxide represented by the general formula LixTi1-yM1yNb2-zM2zO7+δ and niobium titanium oxide represented by the general formula LixTi1-yM3y+zNb2-zO7-δ, where M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Si, and Sn, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of V, Ta, and Bi, M3 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Fe, Ni, Co, W, Ta, and Mo, x satisfies 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, y satisfies 0 ≤ y < 1, z satisfies 0 ≤ z < 2, and δ satisfies -0.3 ≤δ≤ 0.3 (Sekiguchi, “Examples of niobium titanium oxide include LiaTiMbNb2±βO7±σ (0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β≤0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3, and M is at least one element selected from a group consisting of Fe, V, Mo, and Ta).”, see [0056]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β≤0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0 ≤ x ≤ 5, y satisfies 0 ≤ y < 1, z satisfies 0 ≤ z < 2, and δ satisfies -0.3 ≤δ≤ 0.3. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the titanium dioxide comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of monoclinic titanium dioxide, anatase titanium dioxide, rutile titanium dioxide, and bronze titanium dioxide (Sekiguchi, “Examples of titanium oxides include titanium oxides having a monoclinic structure, titanium oxides having a rutile structure, and titanium oxides having an anatase structure. The titanium oxide of each crystal structure can be represented by the composition before charging being TiO2, and the composition after charging being LixTiO2 (x is 0≤x)”, see [0054]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the electrode material is a negative electrode material (Sekiguchi, “The negative electrode is provided with a negative electrode current collector having a compound including aluminum, and a negative electrode active material including titanium”, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the active material -containing layer further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium titanate having a ramsdellite structure, lithium titanate having a spinel structure, hollandite type titanium composite oxide, and orthorhombic titanium composite oxide (Sekiguchi, “Examples of lithium titanium oxides include spinel-type lithium titanium oxides (for example, general formula Li4+xTi5O12 (x is −1≤x≤3)”, see [0055]).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches he electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the precursor is subjected to cutting. (Sekiguchi, “Thereafter, the laminate was dried in a vacuum oven at 130° C. for two hours and then punched into a circle having a diameter of 10 mm. The basis weight per unit area of the obtained positive electrode was 150 g/m2 and the density was 1.94 g/cm3.”, see [0207])
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200303783-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sekiguchi’, in view of (US-20150303519-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hanazaki’, as evidenced by ‘Recent advances in titanium-based electrode materials for stationary sodium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Guo’, in further view of ‘Toward practical all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries with high energy density and safety: Comparative study for electrodes fabricated by dry- and slurry-mixing processes’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Nam’
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Sekiguchi does not teach the electrode material according to claim 1,wherein the active material-containing layer further comprises a lithium-ion conductive solid electrolyte.
Nam teaches the electrode material according to claim 1, further comprising a lithium-ion conductive solid electrolyte (Nam, “The premixing process was carried out by milling a mixture of NCM622 and SE powders with ZrO2 balls at 1000 rpm for 6 min using Thinky Mixer. LiNbO3.”, Experimental).
Nam teaches that this can improve electrochemical performance (Nam, “scalable process for premixing active materials and SEs prior to preparation of the slurry, as the proof-of-concept for achieving more intimate contacts, was demonstrated to significantly improve electrochemical performance, Conclusion).
Sekiguchi and Nam are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery cathode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode material as taught in Modified Sekiguchi to the material as taught in Nam in order to improve the ion transport kinetics and in turn the overall performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“Because Washida measures the moisture content of only the ‘active material’ whereas the present claims measure the moisture content of the ‘electrode material’ as a whole (including the active material-containing layer and current collector), the two moisture contents are not comparable.”
However, this is not convincing. Although Washida measures only the moisture content of the active material, the electrode includes within it the active material. Therefore, the motivation of Washida that low moisture allows for lower interfacial resistance (Washida, see [0053]) would still make the modification of Yoshima to Washida obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as they would still expect improved performance with less moisture content (see MPEP 2144.08 (II)). However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has also found the additional prior art (US-20150303519-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hanazaki’, which teaches a moisture content of the entire electrode to be between 2100 to 3400 ppm, which is within the claimed range (Hanazaki, see [0070]) and teaches that this range allows for advantageous properties in the positive electrode (Hanazaki, see [0009])
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“By Contrast, Washida adjusts the ‘ratio of a moisture content’ of the ‘active material’ by ‘heat treatment or drying by heating under vacuum of the active material’…This difference in process further demonstrates that Washida does not teach or even suggest the subject matter of the claimed invention.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner notes that the process of drying is not a claimed limitation of claim one. Further, there are many methods of drying known to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have taken many routes to achieve the moisture content as claimed, Washida and, to a greater extent, the new reference Hanazaki teach a benefit of drying to a desired moisture content. One of ordinary skill would still have been motivated to achieve the moisture as taught in the prior art and claimed in the instant application.
On pg. 8, the applicant argues:
“Moreover, the technical effects achieved by the present invention also differ from that of Washida…Washida is designed to increase adherence between the ‘active material’ and ‘sulfide solid electrolyte’ by specifiying the ‘ratio of a moisture content.”
However, this is not convincing. The technical effects do not have to be the same as the instant application in order to be an obvious combination (see MPEP 2144 (IV)). Although in view of the new reference ‘Hanazaki’, this argument is moot. All dependent claims are similarly rejected, along with new claim 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752