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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are amended, Claim 3 is canceled, Claims 10-21 are newly added and Claims 1-2 and 3-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “is” in Line 3, this appears to be a grammatical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US 20190356019 A1), hereinafter "Mimura" in view of Kurihara et al. (WO 2018110708 A1 - US 20200087160 A1 referenced for citations), hereinafter "Kurihara". Mimura and Kurihara et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode compositions.
In regard to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 12-13, 19 and 21 Mimura et al. discloses a negative electrode active material composition preferably comprising a lithium titanate powder whose main component is Li4Ti5O12 (Mimura, [0199]) with an average particle diameter ranging from 0.1-60 µm (Mimura, [0201]),which overlaps the claimed ranges and an inorganic solid electrolyte having conductivity for metal ions belonging to Group 1 of Periodic Table (Mimura, [0011]) including a specific example with a sulfide solid electrolyte (Mimura, Example 1) wherein the content of the inorganic solid electrolyte is 1 mass% or more and 95 mass% or less in the negative electrode active material composition (Mimura, [0255, 0109]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Mimura et al. also discloses wherein at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of Al and W and which may reasonably be both, is present on surfaces of the negative active material (Mimura, [0206]), which is preferably lithium titanate particles constituting the lithium titanate powder (Mimura, [0199]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a sulfide solid electrolyte with a lithium titanate negative electrode comprising two or more of the metal elements disclosed in Mimura (Al and W) present on the surfaces of the lithium titanate powder as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
While Mimura et al. discloses a negative electrode active material comprising lithium titanate with metal elements such as Al and W on the surface and the skilled artisan of Mimura must provide the metal elements in some measurable amount, it is silent as to the content ratio of the metal element in the lithium titanate powder being 0.01 mass% or more and 5 mass% or less, however, the skilled artisan would be well aware of the amount of surface coating comprising a metal element as this would amount to nothing more than a result effective variable easily optimized by the skilled artisan without undue experimentation as evidenced by Kurihara.
Kurihara et al. discloses a beneficial negative electrode active material comprising lithium titanate with metal elements such as Al and W on the surface wherein using the atomic and molar information disclosed in Kurihara, a content ratio of the metal element in the lithium titanate powder can be calculated for a specific example wherein Al and W are provided at mass % of 0.16 and 0.8% respectively (Kurihara, Example 3-35), which falls within the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a negative electrode active material comprising lithium titanate with metal elements such as Al and W on the surface as disclosed in Mimura at the mass % disclosed in Kurihara et al. as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 8, Mimura in view of Kurihara et al. discloses the composition according to claim 1. Mimura et al. discloses a negative electrode active material comprising lithium titanate with metal elements such as Al and W on the surface of that material however, the method used to achieve this desired result is not disclosed or particularly limited and can be achieved by any methods known to the skilled artisan. In addition, the skilled artisan of Mimura must provide the metal elements in some measurable amount as to cover the surface of the lithium titanate as required by (Mimura, [0206]), wherein the total metal element concentration would be present and measurable at or near the particle surface, however, it is silent as to the total metal element concentration at an inner and outer position from the lithium titanate particles surface.
Kurihara et al. discloses a method of providing metal elements on a surface of lithium titanate particles that follows the steps of providing an LTO base powder, add metal containing treatment agents to the powder by wet mixing a slurry and performing heat treatment under moderate conditions (Kurihara, [0126, 0131]), which results in a relationship of the metal elements and lithium titanate particles wherein E1 (atm %) is the elemental concentration of M1 at a depth position of 1 nm from the surface of each lithium titanate particle, Eti (atm %) is the atomic concentration of titanium at a depth position of 1 nm therefrom, and E2 (atm %) is the elemental concentration of M1 at a depth position of 100 nm from the surface of each lithium titanate particle, the elemental concentrations and the atomic concentration being measured by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy in cross-sectional analysis of the lithium titanate particles forming the lithium titanate powder using a scanning transmission electron microscope and that E1>E2 (Kurihara, [0041]).
This method of coating lithium titanate with metal elements is the same method used in the current application (Original Specification, [0047, 0052]), which is then applied to a composition comprising a sulfide solid electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the metal elements on the lithium titanate active material particles surfaces as disclosed in Mimura and achieve the surface application of metal elements by using the method taught in Kurihara as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 9, Mimura in view of Kurihara et al. discloses the composition according to claim 1. Mimura et al. also discloses an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer (Mimura, [0041]) wherein the negative electrode layer is a layer containing the negative electrode active material composition according to claim 1.
In regard to Claims 11, 15, and 21, Mimura in view of Kurihara et al. discloses the composition according to claim 1. Mimura et al. also discloses wherein the surfaces of the lithium titanate particles may reasonably comprise Mo in the form of lithium molybdate Li.sub.2MoO.sub.4 and may reasonably further comprise Al and W (Mimura, [0206]) wherein the skilled artisan already contemplates a combination of metal oxides to surface coat the LTO anode active material and selecting this combination would be obvious to try as a simple substitution of one combination of metal oxide surface coatings for another.
In regard to Claims 16-18, Mimura in view of Kurihara et al. discloses the composition according to claim 1. Mimura et al. also discloses LTO being selected as an anode material for high-speed charging/discharging and reduced electrode deterioration (Mimura, [0199]) but is silent as to the purity or an intensity proportion of a main peak of the Li4Ti5O12 is 95% or more of all diffraction peaks measured by X-ray diffraction.
Kurihara et al. discloses LTO as an anode material wherein the preferred selection has an intensity proportion of a main peak of the Li4Ti5O12 is 95% or more of all diffraction peaks measured by X-ray diffraction which has the benefit of a reduced identified non LTO crystalline components improves charging rate characteristics and charge/discharge capacity (Kurihara, [0054]), and which anticipates the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an LTO powder selection that has an intensity proportion of a main peak of the Li4Ti5O12 is 95% or more of all diffraction peaks measured by X-ray diffraction as taught in Kurihara et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kurihara and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 10, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US 20190356019 A1), hereinafter "Mimura" in view of Kurihara et al. (WO 2018110708 A1 - US 20200087160 A1 referenced for citations), hereinafter "Kurihara" as applied to claim 1 above and as evidenced by Albano et al. (US 20160351910 A1), hereinafter “Albano”. Mimura, Kurihara and Albano et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode compositions.
In regard to Claims 10, 14 and 20, Mimura in view of Kurihara et al. discloses the composition according to claim 1. Mimura et al. also discloses surface coating LTO with metal oxides to include Al, W, and Mo but is silent as to the coating also comprising Ce or a combination of Ce and Al, W, and/or Mo. However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of other material combinations for surface coating LTO as taught by Kurihara et al. which discloses a LTO negative active material with a surface coating which may reasonable comprise Ce and Al with the beneficial combination providing the advantage of the surface electron conductivity of the lithium titanate powder is adjusted; as a result, compared to the case where Ce alone is contained, and an electrochemical side reaction caused by donation and reception of electrons which become active at high temperature can be further prevented without increasing the electric resistance. (Kurihara, [0069, 0077, 0080, 0122-0123]).
The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kurihara as evidenced by Albano et al. which discloses LTO surface coating combinations including aluminum disposed between the anode active material and electrolyte, whether liquid or solid-state electrolyte, to inhibit side reactions and maintain capacity of the electrochemical cell, restricting electron conduction while allowing ionic transfer (Albano, [0084, 0086, 0115]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an LTO anode with a surface coating comprising Ce and Al as taught in Kurihara as the LTO anode with a surface coating comprising at least Al disclosed in Mimura as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kurihara and Albano and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments regarding claim 1 and Mimura not disclosing specific working examples of LTO and metal oxide coatings and only describing it in a preferred list of anode materials, a disclosure is not limited to its single embodiments and the skilled artisan could immediately envisage the combination from the limited alternatives (Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381-83 (Fed. Cir. 2015) See MPEP §2131).
Applicants argument in regard to the limitations of canceled claim 3 and that the surface coating metal oxides in Kurihara would not have beneficial results in Mimura because of the electrolyte composition is not persuasive because Mimura itself already provides metal oxide coatings on LTO anodes with solid electrolytes and Kurihara was evidentiary only for the mass% of a known metal oxide coating, relative to a total mass of the lithium titanate powder which is a result effective variable easily optimized by the skilled artisan without undue experimentation and further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regard to applicants arguments that the inventions of Mimura and Kurihara failed to recognize applicants objective with the claimed invention, a newly recognized property of a known composition does not make the claimed composition novel (Titanium Metals Corp. v Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See Mpep §2112.01)
Lastly, in regard to applicants arguments of unexpected results. It is noted that the only evidence provided is applicants description and a generic citation of the unexpected results which does not constitute clear and convincing evidence the skilled artisan of Mimura in view of Kurihara did not possess the claimed combination or that the composition of Mimura in view of Kurihara would not also achieve the same results. See also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1990), See Mpep §2112.01.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Peng et al. (CN 107946550 A) discloses a zirconium-molybdenum-vanadium-coated lithium titanate negative electrode composite material (Peng, Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
