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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments. The rejection is being made second nonfinal to recite that claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC § 103, however, the argument that Cho does not teach claim 1 are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the anticipation rejection is improper because the Office Action incorrectly states that claims 4 and 5 of the present application disclose lithium titanium oxide having an aspect ratio of 10:1 to 2:1. Applicant explains that present claim 4 instead relates to particulate carbon and present claim 5 relates to fibrous carbon. Applicant further asserts that claims 2-8 are likewise patentable because they depend from claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments focus on an apparent clerical error in the mapping of limitations contained in the previous Office Action rather than on the actual teachings relied upon from Cho. The previous Office Action cited “Claim 4” when identifying Cho’s disclosure of lithium titanium oxide having the recited aspect ratio. The citation to “Claim 4” referred to Claim 4 of Cho, not claim 4 of the instated application. The rejection relied upon the disclosure of Cho and not upon Applicant’s dependent claims.
Cho expressly discloses a rechargeable lithium battery including a negative electrode comprising lithium titanium oxide together with a needle-type carbon-based material and a negative active material. Cho further teaches lithium titanium oxide having the claimed aspect ratio and the remaining limitations of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the Office Action’s reference to “Claim 4” does not alter the substance of the rejection because the cited disclosure is found within Cho and continues to disclose the claimed lithium titanium oxide limitation.
Applicant has not identified any limitation of claim 1 that is absent from Cho. Instead, Applicant’s argument addresses only the wording used to identify portions of the reference. A typographical or citation error in identifying a claimed number does not overcome an otherwise proper anticipation rejection where the relied-upon disclosure is present in the reference.
Accordingly, Cho continues to disclose:
a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery;
lithium titanium oxide having the claimed aspect ratio;
a need-type carbon-based material;
a negative active material;
and the remaining limitations recited in claim 1.
Therefore, Cho continues to anticipate claim 1.
Because Applicant has not separately argued the additional limitations of dependent claims 2-8 beyond their dependency from claim 1, and because Cho continues to disclose the respective additional limitations as set forth in the previous Office Action, the rejection of claims 2-8 is likewise maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendment deleting the relative term “about” overcomes the indefiniteness rejection. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Cho, C. et al. (WO 2021225321 A1), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery ([0071], rechargeable lithium battery 100) comprising:
lithium titanium oxide having an aspect ratio of about 10:1 to about 2:1 (Claim 4);
a needle-type carbon-based material (Claim 2-3);
a negative active material ([0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Cho further teaches lithium titanium oxide is represented by Li4+x Tiy Mz Ot in where 0≤x≤3, 1≤y≤5, 0≤z≤3, 3≤t≤12, and M is selected from Mg, La, Tb, Gd, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Ba, Sr, Ca, or combinations thereof ([0014-0015], Formula 1)
Regarding claim 3, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Cho further teaches a needle-type carbon-based material comprises carbon nanotube, carbon nano fiber, or combinations thereof ([0009]).
Regarding claim 6, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Cho further teaches the mixing ratio of lithium titanium oxide and the needle-type carbon-based material is about 2:1 to about 100:1 by weight ratio ([0028], [0039], [0059]). Specifically, Cho teaches a range of 0.002:1 to 45:1 by weight ratio. It is well established that the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 7, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Cho further teaches a negative active material that comprises a silicon-based active material, a carbon-based active material or combinations thereof (Claim 10).
Regarding claim 8, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Cho further teaches a rechargeable lithium battery ([0071], rechargeable lithium battery 100), comprising:
a negative electrode (Claim 1, Claim 11);
a positive electrode (Claim 11);
an electrolyte (Claim 11).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding claim 4, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Cho further teaches a needle-type carbon-based material has an average length of 0.5 μm to 20 μm ([0010]). Specifically, Cho teaches a range of length of 5 μm to 200 μm. It is well established that the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 5, Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Cho further teaches the mixing ratio of lithium titanium oxide and the needle-type carbon-based material is about 2:1 to about 199:1 by weight ratio ([0028], [0039], [0059]). Specifically, Cho teaches a range of 0.002:1 to 45:1 by weight ratio. It is well established that the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights