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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perfler et al. Nanoindeentation, High-Temperature Behavior…”
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Perfler et al. studies the preparation and structure of samples of TiTa2O7 and TiNb2O7 (Abstract). The reference teaches a monoclinic TiNb2O7 crystal structure belonging to a space group of I12/m1 (No.12) and a crystallite size of 0.11 x 0.06 x 0.03 (See Table 1 on Pg. #6837). The crystallite size indicates an aspect ratio of 1.8 (0.11/0.06). This is within the claimed range for Db/Da. The property of being an electrode active material is inherent to the composition.
Regarding claim 3, The reference teaches a monoclinic TiNb2O7 crystal structure belonging to a space group of I12/m1 (No.12) (See Table 1 on Pg. #6837). Further the reference teaches that in the case of TiNb2O7, the (3 × 3)∞ blocks are bounded by crystallographic shear planes along [101] and [001] (Page #6840, right column, 3rd para).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Perfler et al. Nanoindeentation, High-Temperature Behavior…”, in view of Ise et al. US 20160276662.
Regarding claim 7, Perfler et al. does not teach the addition of lithium into the monoclinic niobium complex oxide.
Ise et al. discloses an active material for batteries, that comprises active material particles of a monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide. The particles containing (Para [0025]) at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mo, V and W, wherein the content of the at least one element in the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide is within the range of 0.01 atm % to 2 atm %, and the crystallite size is within the range of 5 nm to 90 nm. Here, as disclosed in paragraph [0040], during prolonged sintering, crystal growth progresses toward one end in an axial direction, resulting in a niobium titanium composite oxide characterized by anisotropically grown crystals that includes coarse crystals in the shape of scales or needles. The reference shows several examples with aspect ratios of 1.52 of 1.63 etc. of the niobium composite oxide within the claimed range (See Table 1). The sample Example 1 is disclosed as monoclinic TiNb2O7 (Para [0211]). The reference teaches introducing lithium in the composite oxide to improve conductivity (Para [0029]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary level of skill in the art to incorporate lithium ions in the TiNb2O7 composition of Perfler. One would be motivated to do so to improve conductivity as discussed in Ise Para [0029].
Regarding claim 8, the Ise reference teaches a crystallite size of 5-90nm and an aspect ratio of 1-4 (Para [0064]). This indicates that at an aspect ratio of 4 the smallest dimension Da of 5nm would have a corresponding Db of 20nm. The ranges of Da and Db are overlapping with the claimed ranges. Overlapping ranges are considered prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP §2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, there is no teaching or suggestion from the prior art regarding “The electrode active material for an electrochemical element according to claim 1 wherein the monoclinic niobium complex oxide is a complex oxide represented by the following general formula (1),
MxAl1-1.5xNb11+O.5xO29-d (1) in the general formula (1), M is at least one element selected from Zn and Cu, and x and 6 satisfy 0≤x≤0.4 and 0≤d≤3”. Claims 5-6 are allowable because they depend on and require all of the limitations of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Perfler reference does not teach the claimed dimensions of the of the crystallite. Applicant argues that the 0.11x0.06x0.03 size described by the reference indicates a Db/Da size of 0.06/0.11 or 0.55. However, the a-axis and the b-axis are not fixed and are only required to be perpendicular to each other. The crystallite or the axis can be superimposed arbitrarily to measure the length and width. Since the instant invention does not define a specific direction for the a or b axes, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention incorporates an embodiment where the length and width are interchanged and the Db/Da ratio is interpreted as 0.11/0.06 or 1.8 which is within the claimed range.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/SYED T IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights