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 12/15/2025 have been entered, but do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action filed 09/15/2025.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200303783-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sekiguchi’, in view of (US-20180277835-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ise’, in view of (US-20180277834-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Harada’
Regarding Claim 1,
Sekiguchi teaches an active material comprising: a niobium titanium-containing oxide phase that comprises a niobium titanium-containing oxide and Na (Sekiguchi, “Examples of lithium titanium composite oxides include niobium titanium oxide and sodium niobium titanium oxide.”, see [0053]) , ( Sekiguchi, “ Li2+vNa2−wM1xTi6−y−zNbyM2zO14+δ (0≤v≤4, 0<w<2, 0≤x<2, 0<y<6, 0≤z<3, y+z<6, −0.5≤δ≤<0.5,)”, see [0057]) ;
Sekiguchi is silent on a niobium titanium-containing oxide having a monoclinic structure and a Na content in the niobium titanium-containing oxide phase is 10 ppm or more and 60 ppm or less.
Ise teaches a niobium titanium-containing oxide having a monoclinic structure and a Na content in the niobium titanium-containing oxide phase is 10 ppm or more and 60 ppm or less (Ise, “The monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide is represented by the general formula Ti1−xM1xNb2−yM2yO7. In the general formula, 0≤x<1, and 0≤y<1 are set. The elements M1 and M2 are at least one selected from the group consisting of V, Ta, Fe, Bi, Sb, As, P, Cr, Mo, W, B, Na, Mg, Al, and Si.”, see [0087])(The examiner notes that if we assume M2 is Na the ppm can range from 0ppm to 96,310ppm [Na-22.99 mass/238.700 total mass *10^6= 96,310ppm], it could also be 50ppm if y=0.0011, x=1, and M1=Bi).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 ppm or more and 96,310ppm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 10ppm to 60ppm. 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.
Ise teaches that this monoclinic formula allows for insertion to be improved and high-rate performance (Ise, “Therefore, in the crystal structure of the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide, the insertion properties of the lithium ions to the insertion space and the extraction properties of the lithium ions from the insertion space are improved, and the insertion-and-extraction space for the lithium ions is effectively increased”, see [0084])
Sekiguchi and Ise are analogous as they are both of the same field of titanium oxide 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 implemented a monoclinic phase with sodium in order to improve the cycling of the cell.
Sekiguchi does not teach a carbon coating layer that coats at least a part of the niobium titanium-containing oxide phase, the carbon coating layer containing 0.001% or more of carboxyl group.
Harada teaches a carbon coating layer that coats at least a part of the niobium titanium-containing oxide phase, the carbon coating layer containing 0.001% or more of carboxyl group (Harada, “The amount of the carboxyl group in the carbon coating layer is preferably such an amount that the carboxyl group concentration on the carbon coating layer obtained by a later described method would be 0.01% to 5%”, see [0053]).
Harada teaches that the carboxyl group suppress side reactions (Harada, “Presumably, side reactions are suppressed by the carboxyl group-containing carbon coating layer”, see [0035]).
Sekiguchi and Harada 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 electrode as taught in Sekiguchi with the carboxyl carbon layer as taught in Harada in order reduce side reaction.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the active material according to claim 1, wherein the niobium titanium-containing oxide phase contains a crystal structure of at least one phase selected from a group consisting of Nb2TiO7 phase, Nb10Ti2O29 phase, Nb14TiO37 phase, and Nb24TiO64 phase ( Sekiguchi, “ Li2+vNa2−wM1xTi6−y−zNbyM2zO14+δ (0≤v≤4, 0<w<2, 0≤x<2, 0<y<6, 0≤z<3, y+z<6, −0.5≤δ≤<0.5,)”, see [0057]) (Sekiguchi, “Examples of niobium titanium oxide include LiaTiMbNb2±βO7±σ (0≤a≤5, 0≤b≤0.3, 0≤β0.3, 0≤σ≤0.3, and M is at least one element selected from a group consisting of Fe, V, Mo, and Ta).”, see [0055]) (the examiner notes that if beta were 0 and sigma were 0 they would match the claim language) .
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0<y<6, 0≤z<3, −0.5≤δ≤<0.5 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 2, 10,14, and 24, 1, and 7, 29, 37, and 64. 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 3,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the active material according to claim 2, wherein the at least one phase contains at least one selected from a group consisting of K, Zr, Sn, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, W, Y, Fe, Co, Cr, Mn, Ni, and Al (Sekiguchi, “M1 contains at least one selected from Cs, K, Sr, Ba, and Ca, and M2 contains at least one selected from Zr, Sn, V, Ta, Mo, W, Fe, Co, Mn, and Al).”, see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the active material according to claim 1, containing an active material particle having a BET specific surface area of 0.8 m2/g or greater and less than 50 m2/g (Sekiguchi, “The specific surface area of the negative electrode active material layer (excluding a current collector) is preferably in the range of 3 m2/g to 50 m2/g.”, see [0064]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches an electrode comprising the active material according to claim 1 (Sekiguchi, “In a secondary battery using a negative electrode containing a titanium-containing oxide,”, see [0085]).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the electrode according to claim 5, comprising a layer of , the active material and an electro-conductive agent that contains a fibrous carbon (Harada, “Examples of the electro-conductive agent include carbonaceous substances such as vapor grown carbon fiber (VGCF)”, see [0139]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, wherein the negative electrode is the electrode according to claim 5 (Sekiguchi, “A secondary battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte containing aqueous electrolyte.”, see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material, comprising a lithium phosphate having an olivine structure (Sekiguchi, “and phosphoric acid compound having an olivine crystal structure (for example, LixFePO4 (0≤x≤1), LixMnPO4 (0≤x≤1)).”, see [0073]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material comprising, s at least one selected from a group consisting of lithium manganese composite oxide having a spinel structure, lithium cobalt composite oxide, lithium nickel cobalt composite oxide, lithium manganese cobalt composite oxide, and lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide (Sekiguchi, “lithium manganese nickel composite oxide such as LixMn2−yNiyO4(0<x≤1, 0<y<2)”, see [0074]).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches a battery pack comprising the secondary battery according to claim 7 (Sekiguchi, “According to a third embodiment, a battery pack is provided”, see [0151]).
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the battery pack according to claim 10, further comprising: an external power distribution terminal (Sekiguchi, positive electrode terminal, 45, Fig.7) ; and a protective circuit (Sekiguchi, “the protection circuit 58”, see [0161]).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the battery pack according to claim 10, further comprising a plurality of secondary batteries electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of in series and in parallel (Sekiguchi, “Examples of the assembled battery include a unit including a plurality of unit cells electrically connected in series or in parallel”, see [0146]).
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches a vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 10 (Sekiguchi, “According to a fourth embodiment, a vehicle is provided”, see [0169]).
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the vehicle according to claim 13, comprising a mechanism that converts kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy (Sekiguchi, “when the vehicle 300 is braked and converts kinetic energy into regenerative energy as electrical energy.”, see [0192]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“The office cites Sekiguchi in paragraph [0053], as describing niobium titanium oxide and sodium niobium titanium oxide. However, as disclosed in paragraph [0057] the material described in Sekiguchi is not of a monoclinic structure. ”
This is partially convincing. The applicant agrees that the highlighted paragraph includes a orthorhombic structure. The prior art also teaches a monoclinic structure (Sekiguchi, see [0054]). However, Sekiguchi is silent as to whether that monoclinic structure explicitly contains sodium in the range as claimed. As seen in other prior art, monoclinic can contain sodium. Such an example is introduced to the rejection in the form of (US-20180277835-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ise’, which teaches a monoclinic structure with sodium (Ise, see [0087]). In Ise, the motivation of a monoclinic structure is more clearly stated. Therefore, the examiner will rely on ‘Ise’ to teach the monoclinic structure, as outlined above, in order to increase clarity.
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“Moreover, the Office alleges, ‘it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode as taught in Sekiguchi with the carboxyl carbon layer as taught in Harada in order to reduce side reactions’ Applicant respectfully disagrees and submit this reasoning is based solely on impermissible hindsight…Sekiguchi teaches that a basic electrolyte is favorable, since elution of aluminum is promoted…As such, Sekiguchi does not only tolerate basicity to be preferable.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s characterization of the prior art. When Sekiguchi is read in whole, it addresses mainly the problem of active material being peeled off by the electrolyte (Sekiguchi, “However, since the active material can be easily peeled off from the current collector by the electrolysis of the aqueous solution electrolyte, the operation of the secondary battery is not stable, and there is a problem in performing satisfactory charge and discharge.”, see [0007]). As a result, the prior art devises an aluminum layer which elutes and forms a protective layer on the electrode (Sekiguchi, “On the surface of this negative electrode, a compound containing aluminum is present. The compound containing aluminum forms at least one of an oxide or a hydroxide, which is deposited on the surface. The compound containing aluminum is present on the surfaces of a negative electrode current collector, and a negative electrode active material, a conductive agent and a binder of the negative electrode, which are exposed on the surface opposite to the current collector of a negative electrode active material layer… Therefore, hydrogen generation can be suppressed at the negative electrode.”, see [0026]). The formation of this layer works best under basic conditions, as seen in the quoted paragraph from the applicant. As quoted by the applicant, Harada describes problems caused by the degradation by the electrolyte (Harada, see [0030]). Like Sekiguchi, this coating suppresses side reactions (Harada, “Hence, it can be seen that the initial charge-and-discharge efficiency becomes higher by coating the composite oxide with carbon containing a carboxyl group. Presumably, side reactions are suppressed by the carboxyl group-containing carbon coating layer”, see [0035]). Both solutions attempt to protect the electrode layer, and Sekiguchi’s works best under the very conditions which it would be needed. The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill studying Sekiguchi would not need Harada, because the side reactions have been suppressed. However, Sekiguchi does not state that it suppresses all side reactions. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to attempt to combine both solutions, or aspects of both, in order to further suppress reactions that each solution on its own could not prevent. Therefore, the claim remains rejected, and all dependent claims are similarly rejected.
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