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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/09/2026 have been entered, and do overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in final office action filed 03/09/2026
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’ in view of ‘Anomalous Electrochemical Dissolution and Passivation of Iron Growth Catalysts in Carbon Nanotubes’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Lyon’
Regarding Claim 1,
Sekiguchi teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a electrolyte (Sekiguchi, “A secondary battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte containing aqueous electrolyte.”, see Abstract) wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of lithium manganese cobalt composite oxide and lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide (Sekiguchi, “Examples of the positive electrode active material include lithium manganese complex oxide, lithium nickel composite oxide, lithium cobalt aluminum complex oxide”, see [0073]), the negative electrode 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 nonaqueous electrolyte, 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 nonaqueous electrolyte (Ise, “The amorphous carbon body 502 is a porous body capable of making lithium ions and a nonaqueous solvent contained in a nonaqueous electrolyte permeate. The electron conductivity of the amorphous carbon body 502 is higher than the electron conductivity of the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide particles 501”, see [0101]) 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 and nonaqueous electrolyte improves the energy density (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])(Ise, “or a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery has been developed as a battery having a high energy density” ,see [0003])
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 and non-aqueous electrolyte 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.
Modified Sekiguchi does not teach the electrolyte containing at least one metal selected from a group consisting of Co, Mn, and Fe, and the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material and an electro- conductive agent that contains carbon nanotubes having residual metal selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn and Fe,
Lyon teaches the electrolyte containing at least one metal selected from a group consisting of Co, Mn, and Fe (Lyon, “We are indeed able to confirm that the redox activity observed in Figure 1b−d corresponds to surface-confined FeII/III electron transfer by adding 1 mM FeIISO4 to each of the supporting electrolytes, which results in an increase of both the cathodic and anodic peak intensities at the same potential in all cases without the appearance of additional peaks (see the Supporting Information).”, see Results and Discussion), and the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material and an electro- conductive agent that contains carbon nanotubes having residual metal selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn and Fe (Lyons, “Catalytically synthesized carbon nanotubes (CNTs) such as those prepared via chemical vapor deposition (CVD) contain metallic impurities including Fe, Ni, Co, and Mo.”, see Abstract).
Lyon teaches that CNT grown through catalytic methods allow for the tailoring of the properties of the CNT (Lyon, “but synthetic methods including laser ablation, arc discharge, and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) can be modified to directly tune CNT structural and chemical properties such as texture, diameter, length, composition, and surface functionalities. (16−18) In CVD, a carbonaceous metal precursor (usually a metallocene or metallophthalocyanine) containing Fe, Ni, Co, or Mo is decomposed at high temperatures (>600 °C) under a reducing (H2) environment, forming metallic nanoparticles that act to catalyze CNT growth”, see Introduction).
Sekiguchi and Lyon are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery 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 carbon material as taught in Sekiguchi to have the catalytically grown CNT as taught in Lyon in order to tailor the properties and as result contain trace metal in the electrode and electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Sekiguchi teaches the active secondary battery 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 secondary battery 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 secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode comprises 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 1 (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 06/09/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive
On pg. 8, the applicant argues:
“Further, Sekiguchi does not disclose carbon nanotubes as a conductive agent and does not consider the problem and effect of residual metals on the carbon nanotubes.
Harada describes a nonaqueous secondary battery and describes electroconductive agents for a negative electrode in paragraph [0139] but does not include carbon nanotubes. Therefore, Harada does not consider the problem and effect of residual metals on the carbon nanotubes relative to the performance of a secondary battery.
Ise also describes a nonaqueous secondary battery and describes electroconductive agents for a negative electrode in paragraph [0148] but does not include carbon nanotubes. Therefore, Harada does not consider the problem and effect of residual metals on the carbon nanotubes relative to the performance of a secondary battery.
Thus, none of Sekiguchi, Harada and Ise alone or in combination can make all the elements of Claim 1 known.”
The examiner finds this convincing and has added to the record Lyon which teaches the carbon nanotubes with the residual metals in both the electrode and electrolyte. Therefore, the combination is obvious in view of: Sekiguchi; Ise, which teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte and phase; Harada, which teaches the carboxyl grouping; and Lyon which teaches the CNT and metal catalyst.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights