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 4/3/25, 8/19/24, 5/3/23, and 5/3/23 were. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/1/23. These drawings are acceptable.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/115206 A1 (“WO’206”) in view of US 2009/325021 A1 (“US’021”).
As to Claim 1:
WO’206 discloses:
a battery cell including an anode, electrolyte, and cathode (Abstract; [0015]–[0020]; [0045]–[0048]), satisfying the claimed overall structure of a battery cell comprising an anode, electrolyte, and cathode;
the cathode comprises a solid titanium oxide nanomaterial having a particle size in the nanometer range ([0018], [0020], [0046]) and being used as a cathode additive in an amount of 1–15 wt % ([0046]), which falls squarely within the claimed range of 1–20 wt %;
the titanium oxide nanomaterial exhibits a pH value less than 5 when measured by JIS K 5101-17-1, corresponding to a 5 wt % aqueous suspension ([0024], Table 1), thus satisfying the pH limitation; and
metal oxide nanomaterial may include metals titanium, manganese, and iron ([0020]; [0035]), meeting the claimed element selection.
However, WO’206 does not disclose the Hammett function H₀ > –12 of the solid metal oxide nanomaterial. While WO’206 characterizes surface acidity via pH measurements, it does not quantify acidity in terms of Hammett function or otherwise describe the strength of acid sites on the oxide surface.
In the same field of endeavor, US’021 pertains to electrochemical electrodes that incorporate solid metal oxide nanomaterials (e.g., TiO₂, SnO₂) exhibiting defined acidity levels characterized by the Hammett function. US’021 discloses TiO₂- and SnO₂-based proton-conductive oxides used as cathode additives ([0073]–[0079]; [0104]–[0109]) and explicitly reports Hammett acidity values (H₀ ≈ –11.9 to –15) for these oxides ([0054]; Table 1). Thus, US’021 teaches that the surface acidity of Ti/Sn oxides can be quantified using the Hammett function, and that Ti-oxide-based solid acids commonly exhibit H₀ values around –11.9, which inherently satisfies the claimed H₀ > –12 range.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to characterize or control the surface acidity of the acidified titanium oxide nanomaterial of WO’206 in terms of its Hammett function (H₀) as taught by US’021, since both references concern Ti/Sn oxide nanomaterials employed in electrochemical electrodes and share the goal of optimizing surface acidity for enhanced ion transport and electrode performance. Doing so would merely express the same known acidity of the oxide material using an alternative, well-established quantitative scale (Hammett function), resulting in a battery cell having the same solid metal oxide nanomaterial with H₀ > –12 as claimed.
As to Claim 2:
WO’206 discloses:
a method for constructing a cathode of a battery cell, wherein an acidified titanium oxide nanomaterial is added to the cathode’s active material (Abstract; [0015]–[0020]; [0045]–[0048]). WO’206 teaches preparing the cathode by adding a solid titanium oxide nanomaterial to a mixture of the active material, binder, and conductive additive, followed by coating and drying ([0046]), thereby meeting the limitation of “adding a solid metal oxide nanomaterial to the active material of the cathode”;
the titanium oxide nanomaterial has a pH value less than 5 when measured by JIS K 5101-17-1, which corresponds to measuring a dried oxide suspended in water at 5 wt % ([0024]; Table 1), thus satisfying the claimed pH limitation;
the metal oxide nanomaterial may include a metal selected from the group consisting of titanium, manganese, and iron ([0020]; [0035]), meeting the claimed metal selection; and
the titanium oxide nanomaterial is used in an amount of 1–15 wt % based on the total solids ([0046]), which falls within the claimed range of 1–20 wt %.
However, WO’206 does not disclose that the solid metal oxide nanomaterial has a Hammett function (H₀ > –12), nor does it describe characterization of surface acidity using the Hammett function scale. While WO’206 quantifies the acidity of the oxide nanomaterial by pH measurement, it does not express or confirm the same in terms of a Hammett function value.
US’021 explicitly characterizes these materials by their Hammett acidity function (H₀), teaching that TiO₂–WO₃ and SnO₂–WO₃ oxides exhibit H₀ values from –11.9 to –15 ([0054]; Table 1). Thus, US’021 provides the missing teaching that Ti and Sn oxide nanomaterials used in electrochemical cathodes have measurable Hammett acidity and that certain compositions exhibit H₀ values greater than –12, satisfying the claimed parameter.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to characterize or select the acidified Ti/Sn oxide nanomaterials of WO’206 in terms of their Hammett function (H₀) as taught by US’021. Both references share the goal of improving electrode functionality via control of oxide acidity. Therefore, expressing the surface acidity of WO’206’s Ti/Mn/Fe oxide in terms of H₀, or selecting an oxide with H₀ > –12, would merely involve using a well-known, standardized measure of acid strength (Hammett function) to describe a property already inherently present in such acidified oxides. Doing so would result in a cathode constructed by the claimed method, having a solid metal oxide nanomaterial with the specified pH and H₀ values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Milton Cano can be reached at (313)446-4937. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723