CTNF 18/457,494 CTNF 101920 Been DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. Information Disclosure Statement U.S. Patent Document 2024/00555595 A1 (Aoki et al.) listed in the IDS received 04/03/2024 has not been considered due to an invalid patent document number being listed. However, the English machine translation of the corresponding WIPO document listed on the IDS (WO 2022/138104 A1) has been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 3 and 9 are 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. Regarding claim 3, Applicant recites “[…] 5 g/m 2 to 40 g/m 2 […]” but the units of g/m 2 are inconsistent with BET specific surface area. Therefore, it is not clear if Applicant is reciting inverse units intentionally or not. From para. [0057] of the specification, it appears that units of m 2 /g are appropriate and such units have been taken for the purposes of examination. Regarding claim 9, Applicant recites “[…] comprising a plural of the secondary battery […]” and then “[…] the secondary batteries […]”. Here “the secondary batteries” lacks antecedent basis, as they were not explicitly recited earlier in the claim or in a claim on which claim 9 depends. For the purposes of examination, “the secondary batteries” are interpreted to hold antecedent basis in “plural of the secondary battery”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 5. 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groombridge (US PG Pub 2022/0384798 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Groombridge discloses an active material (electrode material [abstract] ) comprising a composite metal oxide containing an Mo element, an Nb element, and an element M, M being at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Ta, Fe, Co, Mn, Ni, Bi, Sb, As, P, Cr, W, B, Na, K, Mg, Al, Ca, Y and Si (general formula [M1] x [M2] (1−x) Nb y O z , where M1 represents one or more of Ti, Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Te, Se, Si, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Re, Zn, In, or Cd and M2 represents one or more of Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd and 0<x<0.5, 0.5≤y≤49, and 4≤z≤124 (para. [0019]) ). Furthermore, Groombridge discloses the active material comprising the composite metal oxide as spherical particles (spherical form of sample 3 (para. [0222], [0254]) is depicted in Fig. 9 and 10), the spherical particles being secondary particles containing primary particles of the composite metal oxide (para. [0157]) . The average particle size of the primary crystallites may be from 10 nm to 10 µm and Groombridge teaches that for ultra-high power applications, it may be advantageous for the primary crystallite size to be low, e.g. less than 50 nm rendering the claimed range of 10 nm to 300 nm obvious (para. [0156]) . Groombridge also anticipates the claimed range of 1 µm to 10 µm (average particle size of the secondary particles being from 1 μm to 30 μm, preferably 2 μm to 15 μm (para. [0157]) . Groombridge does not explicitly describe the disclosed crystal structure as having a non-periodic crystal structure. However, the first embodiment of the instant application discloses a metal oxide with a non-periodic crystal structure in para. [0031] having the general formula Li a M b NbMo c O d where M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Ta, Fe, Co, Mn, Ni, Bi, Sb, As, P, Cr, W, B, Na, K, Mg, Al, Ca, Y and Si and each of the subscripts in the formula respectively satisfies, 0≤a≤b+2+3c, 0≤b≤1.5, 0≤c≤0.5, and 2.33≤d/(1+b+c)≤2.50 in para. [0032]. As per the general structure formula of Groombridge above, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have expected the overlapping composition of Groombridge (c.f. 0<x<0.5 of Groombridge to 0≤b≤1.5 of the instant application) to yield the same inherent physical properties, including the presence of a non-periodic crystal structure as claimed Because the composition disclosed by Groombridge is substantially identical to the instant application in terms of composition of the niobium oxide-based materials, it would be expected for at least some of the compositions which overlap in scope with the material as set forth in par. [0032] of the present application to have a non-periodic crystal structure. In view of the articulation of a basis for the inherent presence of a non-periodic crystal structure in the composition in Groombridge, the burden shifts to Applicant to prove that the composition disclosed by Groombridge does not possess the inherent property of a non-periodic crystal structure (see MPEP 2112 I-V) . Regarding claim 3, Groombridge discloses an active material wherein the BET specific surface area of the spherical particles are in the range of 0.5-50 m 2 /g (para. [0155]) anticipating the claimed range of 5 – 40 m 2 /g as per MPEP 2131.03. Regarding claim 4, Groombridge discloses an electrode comprising the active material according to claim 1 ( para. [0208] , Fig. 18 shows image of electrode from active material sample). Regarding claim 5, Groombridge discloses an electrode further comprising an active material-containing layer, the active material-containing layer comprising the active material ( para. [0254] and [0222] , Fig. 18 shows an electrode comprising a layer of the electrode active material and a layer of carbon). Regarding claim 6, Groombridge discloses a battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, the positive electrode comprising the electrode according to claim 4 (para. [0164]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groombridge (US PG Pub 2022/0384798 A1) in view of Zhi (CN 110911676 A) (Machine Translation of CN 110911676 A used as English translation) . In the alternative to the inherency basis stated above, the claims are further rejected as follows: Regarding claim 1, Groombridge discloses an active material (electrode material [abstract] ) comprising a composite metal oxide containing an Mo element, an Nb element, and an element M, M being at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Ta, Fe, Co, Mn, Ni, Bi, Sb, As, P, Cr, W, B, Na, K, Mg, Al, Ca, Y and Si (general formula [M1] x [M2] (1−x) Nb y O z , where M1 represents one or more of Ti, Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Te, Se, Si, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Re, Zn, In, or Cd and M2 represents one or more of Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd and 0<x<0.5, 0.5≤y≤49, and 4≤z≤124 (para. [0019]) ). Furthermore, Groombridge discloses the active material comprising the composite metal oxide as spherical particles (spherical form of sample 3 (para. [0222], [0254]) is depicted in Fig. 9 and 10), the spherical particles being secondary particles containing primary particles of the composite metal oxide (para. [0157]) . The average particle size of the primary crystallites may be from 10 nm to 10 µm and Groombridge teaches that for ultra-high power applications, it may be advantageous for the primary crystallite size to be low, e.g. less than 50 nm rendering the claimed range of 10 nm to 300 nm obvious (para. [0156]) . Groombridge also overlaps with the claimed range of 1 µm to 10 µm (average particle size of the secondary particles being from 1 μm to 30 μm, preferably 2 μm to 15 μm (para. [0157]) . Groombridge fails to explicitly teach a non-periodic crystal structure. Zhi teaches a positive electrode material including positive electrode particles containing a quasicrystal metal oxide including at least one of Mn, Al, Nb, Fe, Co, and Ni according to the general formula LiM x O y where 0 < x ≤2, 0 < y ≤ 4 (3 rd full paragraph in Summary of Invention) . Zhi also teaches the presence of secondary particles aggregated from primary particles (diameter of 100 nm) (9 th full paragraph in Detailed Description) . Furthermore, Zhi teaches that a quasicrystal structure may energetically favor a reversible conversion reaction between metal oxides and alkali metals or lithium ions in an aqueous medium offering an improvement in energy density over an intercalation mechanism and improving battery safety (4 th full paragraph in Detailed Description) . Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use a quasicrystal form of the composite metal oxide taught by Groombridge to yield the predictable result of improved energy density to arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 3, Groombridge discloses an active material wherein the BET specific surface area of the spherical particles are in the range of 0.5-50 m 2 /g (para. [0155]) anticipating the claimed range of 5 – 40 m 2 /g as per MPEP 2131.03. Regarding claim 4, Groombridge discloses an electrode comprising the active material according to claim 1 ( para. [0208] , Fig. 18 shows image of electrode from active material sample). Regarding claim 5, Groombridge discloses an electrode further comprising an active material-containing layer, the active material-containing layer comprising the active material ( para. [0254] and [0222] , Fig. 18 shows an electrode comprising a layer of the electrode active material and a layer of carbon). Regarding claim 6, Groombridge discloses a battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, the positive electrode comprising the electrode according to claim 4 (para. [0164]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhi (CN 110911676 A) (Machine Translation of CN 110911676 A used as English translation) in view of Harada (US PG Pub 2019/0296345 A1) and Groombridge (US PG Pub 2022/0384798 A1) . In the alternative to the inherency basis stated above, the claims are further rejected as follows: Regarding claim 1, Zhi teaches a positive electrode material including positive electrode particles containing a quasicrystal metal oxide including at least one of Mn, Al, Nb, Fe, Co, and Ni according to the general formula LiM x O y where 0 < x ≤2, 0 < y ≤ 4 (3 rd full paragraph in Summary of Invention) . Zhi also teaches the presence of spherical secondary particles (see 2 nd paragraph of page 4, Fig. 1a and 1b) aggregated from primary particles (diameter of 100 nm) (9 th full paragraph in Detailed Description) . Zhi fails to teach a secondary particle size within the claimed range. Harada teaches an active material including a composite oxide containing Nb and Mo according to the following general formulas: Nb 2 TiO 7 , Nb 2 Ti 2 O 9 , Nb 10 Ti 2 O 29 , Nb 14 TiO 37 , and Nb 24 TiO 62 where at least part of the Nb and/or Ti is substituted by a dopant, for example Na, K, Ca, Co, Ni, Si, P, V, Cr, Mo, Ta, Zr, Mn, Fe, Mg, B, Pb, and Al (para. [0048]) . Furthermore, Harada teaches that the active material includes a plurality of primary particles (para. [0042]) composed of the composite oxide crystallites (para. [0056]) and that the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is preferably in the range of 0.5 to 5 µm. Harada further teaches that when the particle size is less than the disclosed range, electrode density suffers and when the range is exceeded, lithium-ion diffusion suffers (para. [0054]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary particle size of Zhi to the range taught by Harada to yield the expected result of balanced density and li-ion diffusion. Regarding claim 2, Zhi fails to teach an active material in the form of a secondary particle as described above having a coefficient of form unevenness of 0.8 or more. Harada teaches an active material including a composite oxide containing Nb and Mo according to the following general formulas: Nb2TiO7, Nb2Ti2O9, Nb10Ti2O29, Nb14TiO37, and Nb24TiO62 where at least part of the Nb and/or Ti is substituted by a dopant, for example Na, K, Ca, Co, Ni, Si, P, V, Cr, Mo, Ta, Zr, Mn, Fe, Mg, B, Pb, and Al (para. [0048]) . Furthermore, Harada teaches that the active material includes a plurality of primary particles (para. [0042]) composed of the composite oxide crystallites with a size range of 50 to 200 nm (para. [0056]) and that the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is preferably in the range of 0.5 to 5 µm (para. [0054]) . Harada further teaches that the FU avg is preferably 0.70 to 1.00, anticipating the claimed range of 0.8 or more (para. [0037]) . Furthermore, Harada teaches that electrode density tends to be higher when average roughness shape coefficient (FUavg) > 0.7, leading to greater energy density and improved lifecycle characteristics (para. [0062]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spherical particles with the FU coefficient taught by Harada to yield improved energy density and lifecycle characteristics in the particles of Zhi to arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 3, Zhi and Harada both fail to teach an inventive example of the active material described above (i.e. comprising a metal oxide containing Mo, Nb, and an element M as claimed in claim 1) having the form of spherical particles with a BET specific surface area of 5 m 2 /g to 40 m 2 /g. Groombridge discloses an active material wherein the BET specific surface area of the spherical particles are in the range of 0.5-50 m2/g (para. [0155]) and teaches that too low a BET surface area results in an unacceptably low charging rate yet a low BET surface area is desirable to minimize the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer during the first charge-discharge cycle (para. [0155]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use particles having a BET surface area within the range taught by Groombridge, arriving at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 4, Zhi and Harada both fail to teach an inventive example of an electrode comprising the active material described above (i.e. comprising a metal oxide containing Mo, Nb, and an element M as claimed in claim 1). Groombridge teaches an electrode comprising an active material containing Mo, Nb, and W (para. [0208], Fig. 18 shows image of electrode from active material sample 22 – see para. [0222] on sample 22 composition) . Groombridge also teaches that forming a mixed cation structure (by substituting non-Nb cations) reduces potential energy barriers to Li ion diffusion by introducing minor defects in the crystal structure (para. [0027]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Mo, Nb, and W containing composition taught by Groombridge in an electrode formed from particles as taught by Harada to arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 5, Zhi and Harada both fail to teach an inventive example of the electrode according to claim 4, further comprising an active material-containing layer, the active material-containing layer. Groombridge discloses an electrode further comprising an active material-containing layer, the active material-containing layer comprising the active material (para. [0254] and [0222], Fig. 18 shows an electrode comprising a layer of the electrode active material and a layer of carbon) . Groombridge also teaches that a suitable method for preparing an electrode layer is by spray-drying (para. [0222]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have used the spray-drying method of Groombridge to prepare an electrode layer. Regarding claim 6, Zhi and Harada both fail to teach an inventive example of the electrode according to claim 4, wherein the positive or negative electrode is in a secondary battery with an electrolyte. Groombridge discloses an electrochemical device positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, the positive electrode comprising the electrode according to claim 4 (para. [0164]) and teaches that mixed niobium oxides (MNO’s) used in batteries are known in the art (para. [0011]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrode described above in a secondary battery. Regarding claims 7-9, Zhi fails to teach a battery pack, further comprising an external power distribution terminal and a protective circuit, comprising plural of the secondary battery, the secondary batteries being electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in combination of in-series connection and in-parallel connection. Harada teaches a battery pack (para. [0183] – [0206], ref.#300 in Fig. 10) comprising an external power distribution terminal (para. [0185], ref. #347 in Fig. 10) , a protective circuit (para. [0194], ref. #344 in Fig. 10) , and plural single-batteries (para. [0198], ref.#100 in Fig. 11) connected in series, parallel, or a combination (para. [0204]) . Harada further teaches that the battery pack configuration disclosed may be used for applications requiring excellent cycle performance where a large current is extracted, particularly as an onboard battery (para. [0205]) . Harada also teaches that the power distribution terminal is disclosed is configured to output current from the secondary battery as well as charge the secondary battery (e.g. utilizing the regenerative energy from the motive force of a vehicle) (para. [0185]) and that the protective circuit serves to control the charging and discharging process of the secondary battery (para. [0184]) . Lastly, Harada teaches that battery capacity may be increased by parallel (vs. series) connection (para. [0191]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the secondary batteries into a battery pack with a power distribution terminal and protective circuit as taught by Harada to enable the use of the batteries onboard a vehicle for discharging and charging. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the single-batteries in a parallel arrangement to increase capacity, arriving at the claimed invention. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Zhi fails to teach a vehicle comprising a battery pack, wherein the vehicle comprises a mechanism to convert kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy. Harada teaches a vehicle (para. [0214] and [0215], ref.#400 in Fig. 12) comprising the battery pack (ref.#300 in Fig. 12) and a mechanism configured to convert kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy (para. [0207] – [0208]) . Harada teaches that batteries may be used to improve the motive performances of vehicles such as hybrid electric vehicles, enabling efficient recovery of regenerative motive force (para. [0003]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the secondary battery of Zhi in a battery pack as an onboard battery configured to recover regenerative energy from a vehicle as taught by Harada for to arrive at the claimed invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US PG Pub 2022/0238875 A1) in view of Harada (US PG Pub 2019/0296345 A1) and further in view of Groombridge (US PG Pub 2022/0384798 A1) . In the alternative to the rejections stated above, the claims are further rejected as follows: Huang teaches an electrochemical energy storage material comprising a metal oxide quasicrystal containing Nb, Mo, and an additional metal according to the general structure formula M x O y-z where M is selected from one or more combinations of Nb, Mo, Ti, V, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, W, Ta, or Zr and 1≤x≤2, 1≤y≤5, and 0.1≤z≤0.9 (abstract) . Furthermore, in one aspect Huang teaches a controllable porous metal oxide structure providing channels for electrolyte diffusion in a liquid medium (para. [0008] - [0017]) . Huang teaches the importance of controlling pore diameter distribution to provide a buffer for volume change during the electrochemical process of the material as well as to promote good electrolyte diffusion (para. [0017]) . However, Huang fails to teach a spherical particle morphology for the electrochemical energy storage material and motivation for a quasicrystal structure. Harada teaches an active material including a composite oxide containing Nb and Mo according to the following general formulas: Nb 2 TiO 7 , Nb 2 Ti 2 O 9 , Nb 10 Ti 2 O 29 , Nb 14 TiO 37 , and Nb 24 TiO 62 where at least part of the Nb and/or Ti is substituted by a dopant, for example Na, K, Ca, Co, Ni, Si, P, V, Cr, Mo, Ta, Zr, Mn, Fe, Mg, B, Pb, and Al (para. [0048]) . Furthermore, Harada teaches that the active material includes a plurality of primary particles (para. [0042]) composed of the composite oxide crystallites with a size range of 50 to 200 nm (para. [0056]) and that the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is preferably in the range of 0.5 to 5 µm. Harada further teaches that when the particle size is less than the disclosed range, electrode density suffers and when the range is exceeded, lithium-ion diffusion suffers (para. [0054]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition of Huang in a particle morphology to exert better control over the battery’s performance as taught by Harada. Harada, however, does not explicitly teach a spherical secondary particle morphology. Groombridge teaches an active material (electrode material [abstract] ) comprising a composite metal oxide containing an Mo element, an Nb element, and an element M, M being at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Ta, Fe, Co, Mn, Ni, Bi, Sb, As, P, Cr, W, B, Na, K, Mg, Al, Ca, Y and Si (general formula [M1]x[M2](1−x)NbyOz, where M1 represents one or more of Ti, Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Te, Se, Si, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Re, Zn, In, or Cd and M2 represents one or more of Mg, V, Cr, W, Zr, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd and 0<x<0.5, 0.5≤y≤49, and 4≤z≤124 (para. [0019]) ). Furthermore, Groombridge discloses the active material comprising the composite metal oxide as spherical particles (spherical form of sample 3 (para. [0222]) is depicted in Fig. 9 and 10) , the spherical particles being secondary particles containing primary particles of the composite metal oxide (para. [0157]) . Groombridge further teaches that homogenous porous secondary particles (i.e. spherical particles) can pack efficiently to form a high-density electrode (para. [0254]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spherical aggregates (secondary particles) (as taught by Groombridge) of the primary particle form (as taught by Harada) to form a high-density electrode from the composition of Huang, arriving at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2, Huang in view of Groombridge fails to teach an active material having a coefficient of form unevenness of 0.8 or above. Harada teaches an active material including a composite oxide containing Nb and Mo according to the following general formulas: Nb2TiO7, Nb2Ti2O9, Nb10Ti2O29, Nb14TiO37, and Nb24TiO62 where at least part of the Nb and/or Ti is substituted by a dopant, for example Na, K, Ca, Co, Ni, Si, P, V, Cr, Mo, Ta, Zr, Mn, Fe, Mg, B, Pb, and Al (para. [0048]) . Furthermore, Harada teaches that the active material includes a plurality of primary particles (para. [0042]) composed of the composite oxide crystallites with a size range of 50 to 200 nm (para. [0056]) and that the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is preferably in the range of 0.5 to 5 µm (para. [0054]) . Harada further teaches that the FU avg is preferably 0.70 to 1.00, anticipating the claimed range of 0.8 or more (para. [0037]) . Furthermore, Harada teaches that electrode density tends to be higher when average roughness shape coefficient (FUavg) > 0.7, leading to greater energy density and improved lifecycle characteristics (para. [0062]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spherical particles with the FU coefficient taught by Harada to yield improved energy density and lifecycle characteristics in the particles taught by Groombridge and the composition of Huang to arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 3, Huang fails to teach an active material wherein the BET specific surface area of the spherical particles is from 5 m 2 /g to 40 m 2 /g. Harada teaches the primary particles comprising an active material as described above with a BET specific surface area of 0.1 m 2 /g to 100 m 2 /g (para. [0055]) . As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, Harada teaches that exceeding the disclosed range deteriorates battery life, whereas a specific surface area below the disclosed range results in poor discharge rate / charging time resulting from poor contact with the electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have electrode active particles with a BET specific surface area within the claimed range to balance discharging / charging characteristics with lifecycle characteristics as taught by Harada. Regarding claim 4, Huang and Harada both fail to teach an inventive example of an electrode comprising the active material described above (i.e. comprising a metal oxide containing Mo, Nb, and an element M as claimed in claim 1). Groombridge teaches an electrode comprising an active material containing Mo, Nb, and W (para. [0208], Fig. 18 shows image of electrode from active material sample 22 – see para. [0222] on sample 22 composition) . Groombridge also teaches that forming a mixed cation structure (by substituting non-Nb cations) reduces potential energy barriers to Li ion diffusion by introducing minor defects in the crystal structure (para. [0027]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Mo, Nb, and W containing composition taught by Groombridge in an electrode formed from particles as taught by Harada to arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 5, Huang and Harada both fail to teach an inventive example of the electrode according to claim 4, further comprising an active material-containing layer, the active material-containing layer. Groombridge discloses an electrode further comprising an active material-containing layer, the active material-containing layer comprising the active material (para. [0254] and [0222], Fig. 18 shows an electrode comprising a layer of the electrode active material and a layer of carbon) . Groombridge also teaches that a suitable method for preparing an electrode layer is by spray-drying (para. [0222]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have used the spray-drying method of Groombridge to prepare an electrode layer. Regarding claim 6, Huang and Harada both fail to teach an inventive example of the electrode according to claim 4, wherein the positive or negative electrode is in a secondary battery with an electrolyte. Groombridge discloses an electrochemical device positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, the positive electrode comprising the electrode according to claim 4 (para. [0164]) and teaches that mixed niobium oxides (MNO’s) used in batteries are known in the art (para. [0011]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrode described above in a secondary battery. Regarding claims 7-9, Huang fails to teach a battery pack, further comprising an external power distribution terminal and a protective circuit, comprising plural of the secondary battery, the secondary batteries being electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in combination of in-series connection and in-parallel connection. Harada teaches a battery pack (para. [0183] – [0206], ref.#300 in Fig. 10) comprising an external power distribution terminal (para. [0185], ref. #347 in Fig. 10) , a protective circuit (para. [0194], ref. #344 in Fig. 10) , and plural single-batteries (para. [0198], ref.#100 in Fig. 11) connected in series, parallel, or a combination (para. [0204]) . Harada further teaches that the battery pack configuration disclosed may be used for applications requiring excellent cycle performance where a large current is extracted, particularly as an onboard battery (para. [0205]) . Harada also teaches that the power distribution terminal is disclosed is configured to output current from the secondary battery as well as charge the secondary battery (e.g. utilizing the regenerative energy from the motive force of a vehicle) (para. [0185]) and that the protective circuit serves to control the charging and discharging process of the secondary battery (para. [0184]) . Lastly, Harada teaches that battery capacity may be increased by parallel (vs. series) connection (para. [0191]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the secondary batteries into a battery pack with a power distribution terminal and protective circuit as taught by Harada to enable the use of the batteries onboard a vehicle for discharging and charging. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the single-batteries in a parallel arrangement to increase capacity, arriving at the claimed invention. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Huang fails to teach a vehicle comprising a battery pack, wherein the vehicle comprises a mechanism to convert kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy. Harada teaches a vehicle (para. [0214] and [0215], ref.#400 in Fig. 12) comprising the battery pack (ref.#300 in Fig. 12) and a mechanism configured to convert kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy (para. [0207] – [0208]) . Harada teaches that batteries may be used to improve the motive performances of vehicles such as hybrid electric vehicles, enabling efficient recovery of regenerative motive force (para. [0003]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the secondary battery of Huang in a battery pack as an onboard battery configured to recover regenerative energy from a vehicle as taught by Harada for to arrive at the claimed invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groombridge (US PG Pub 2022/0384798 A1) in view of Harada (US PG Pub US 2019/0296345 A1) . Groombridge is relied on as described above. Regarding claim 2, Groombridge fails to teach an active material wherein an average value of the form unevenness coefficient FUave of the spherical particles is 0.8 or more. Harada teaches an active material including a composite oxide containing Nb and Mo according to the following general formulas: Nb2TiO7, Nb2Ti2O9, Nb10Ti2O29, Nb14TiO37, and Nb24TiO62 where at least part of the Nb and/or Ti is substituted by a dopant, for example Na, K, Ca, Co, Ni, Si, P, V, Cr, Mo, Ta, Zr, Mn, Fe, Mg, B, Pb, and Al (para. [0048]) . Furthermore, Harada teaches that the active material includes a plurality of primary particles (para. [0042]) composed of the composite oxide crystallites with a size range of 50 to 200 nm (para. [0056]) and that the average particle size (D50) of the primary particles is preferably in the range of 0.5 to 5 µm (para. [0054]) . Harada further teaches that the FU avg is preferably 0.70 to 1.00, anticipating the claimed range of 0.8 or more (para. [0037]) . Furthermore, Harada teaches that electrode density tends to be higher when average roughness shape coefficient (FUavg) > 0.7, leading to greater energy density and improved lifecycle characteristics (para. [0062]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spherical particles with the FU coefficient taught by Harada to yield improved energy density and lifecycle characteristics in the particles of Groombridge to arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claims 7-9, Groombridge fails to teach a battery pack, further comprising an external power distribution terminal and a protective circuit, comprising plural of the secondary battery, the secondary batteries being electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in combination of in-series connection and in-parallel connection. Harada teaches a battery pack (para. [0183] – [0206], ref.#300 in Fig. 10) comprising an external power distribution terminal (para. [0185], ref. #347 in Fig. 10) , a protective circuit (para. [0194], ref. #344 in Fig. 10) , and plural single-batteries (para. [0198], ref.#100 in Fig. 11) connected in series, parallel, or a combination (para. [0204]) . Harada further teaches that the battery pack configuration disclosed may be used for applications requiring excellent cycle performance where a large current is extracted, particularly as an onboard battery (para. [0205]) . Harada also teaches that the power distribution terminal is disclosed is configured to output current from the secondary battery as well as charge the secondary battery (e.g. utilizing the regenerative energy from the motive force of a vehicle) (para. [0185]) and that the protective circuit serves to control the charging and discharging process of the secondary battery (para. [0184]) . Lastly, Harada teaches that battery capacity may be increased by parallel (vs. series) connection (para. [0191]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the secondary batteries into a battery pack with a power distribution terminal and protective circuit as taught by Harada to enable the use of the batteries onboard a vehicle for discharging and charging. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the single-batteries in a parallel arrangement to increase capacity, arriving at the claimed invention. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Groombridge fails to teach a vehicle comprising a battery pack, wherein the vehicle comprises a mechanism to convert kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy. Harada teaches a vehicle (para. [0214] and [0215], ref.#400 in Fig. 12) comprising the battery pack (ref.#300 in Fig. 12) and a mechanism configured to convert kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy (para. [0207] – [0208]) . Harada teaches that batteries may be used to improve the motive performances of vehicles such as hybrid electric vehicles, enabling efficient recovery of regenerative motive force (para. [0003]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the secondary battery of Groombridge in a battery pack as an onboard battery configured to recover regenerative energy from a vehicle as taught by Harada for to arrive at the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW JON MCMULLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0127. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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. /N.A.M./ Nathan A McMullen Examiner, Art Unit 1788 6/1/2026 /ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 2 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 3 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 4 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 5 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 6 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 7 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 8 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 9 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 10 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 11 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 12 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 13 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 14 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 15 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 16 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 17 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 18 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 19 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 20 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 21 Art Unit: 1788 Application/Control Number: 18/457,494 Page 22 Art Unit: 1788
Prosecution Insights