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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In line 4, the use of parenthesis makes the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitations within the parenthesis are required or not.
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.
Relevant Art
Ghadyani et al. “Microstructure and isothermal oxidation of alumina scale…” teaches alloys and mixtures of Nb with Si and Al (Abstract). The reference teaches forming mixtures of TiO2 and Nb2O5 with Al2O3. The Ti2Nb10O29 is orthorhombic, and both TiNb2O7 and AlNb11O29 have monoclinic structure (See Pg. 27, 3rd para).
Conclusion
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