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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are currently pending.
Claims 1 has been amended.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 14 has been newly added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/25/2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This Action has been made final.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 26 May 2026
The 103 rejection for claim 1 from the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, new grounds of rejection have been set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s argument.
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 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 20170077504 A17) in view of Yoshima et al. (US 20190089009 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ise teaches of an electrode [0009] comprising: niobium titanium oxide particles (Fig. 3, 201, [0083]) and an inorganic particle-containing layer covering a part of surfaces of the niobium titanium oxide particles (Fig. 3, 202, [0084]), at least a part of a portion other than the part of surfaces of the niobium titanium oxide particles being exposed on a surface of the electrode (Ise [0067]). In [0067], Ise states that “it is sufficient if the shell layer covers at least a part of the surface of the core particle”, meaning that a percentage of the niobium titanium oxide particle may be exposed. Ise does not teach that the electrode also comprises inorganic particles, wherein an average particle size of the inorganic particles is larger than a thickness of the inorganic particle-containing layer.
Yoshima, however, does teach an electrode (Abstract) comprising niobium titanium oxide particles (Fig. 3, 11, [0067], [0147]) and inorganic particles (Fig. 3, 12, [0108], [0147]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Ise et al. electrode to include inorganic particles mixed in with the inorganic particle covered niobium titanium oxide particles because when the negative electrode layer contains the solid electrolyte, or inorganic, particles, the negative electrode density can be improved, and the water content in the negative electrode layer can be reduced. Therefore, electrolysis of water that occurs in the negative electrode layer is suppressed. (Yoshima [0024]).
The modified Ise battery also teaches that the average particle size of the inorganic particles is larger than a thickness of the inorganic particle-containing layer. Yoshima discloses that the average particle size of the inorganic particle is in a range from 0.05 μm to 10 μm [0116]. Ise discloses that the average thickness of the inorganic particle-containing later is 0.03 μm [0238]. The entire range of average inorganic particle sizes is larger than the average inorganic particle containing layer thickness.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ise teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the inorganic particle-containing layer is in a range of 0.001 μm or more and 0.4 μm or less (Ise [0238]). The thickness of the shell layer 102 shown in FIG. 16 was RS=0.03 μm. This thickness falls within the range stated in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ise teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the average particle size of the inorganic particles is in a range of 0.4 μm or more and 1 μm or less (Yoshima [0116]). The average particle size of the solid electrolyte particles is, for example, 0.05 μm to 10 μm. This range covers the range stated in the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ise teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of a solid electrolyte (Yoshima [0108]), and a metal oxide containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Si, Zr, and Mg (Yoshima [0110]). Yoshima gives an example of a solid electrolyte consisting of at least one element selected from the group: “an inorganic compound represented by LiM2(PO4)3 having a NASICON skeleton (M is at least one material selected from Ti, Ge, Sr, Zr, Sn, and Al)” [0108]. Yoshima also gives the example of the metal oxide: “an oxide such as…garnet type LLZ (Li7La3Zr2O12)” [0110].
Regarding claim 6, modified Ise teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic particle-containing layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of solid electrolyte-containing particles, and particles comprising a metal oxide containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Si, Zr, and Mg (Ise [0054]). Ise’s example is a lithium phosphate layer, and lithium phosphate is a known solid electrolyte ( [0065] of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ise teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic particles comprise a solid electrolyte, and the inorganic particle-containing layer comprises solid electrolyte-containing particles (Ise [0054], Yoshima [0108]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ise teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a nonaqueous electrolyte, wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises a fluorine atom (Ise [0170]), and at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode is the electrode according to claim 1 (Ise Claim 10).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ise teaches a battery pack comprising the secondary battery according to claim 8 (Ise Claim 11).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ise teaches the battery pack according to claim 9, further comprising: an external power distribution terminal; and a protective circuit (Ise Claim 12)
Regarding claim 11, modified Ise teaches the battery pack according to claim 9, further comprising a plurality of the secondary battery, the plurality of the secondary battery being electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of in series and in parallel (Ise Claim 13).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ise teaches a vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 9 (Ise Claim 14).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ise teaches the vehicle according to claim 12, comprising a mechanism that converts kinetic energy of the vehicle into regenerative energy (Ise Claim 15).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise in view of Yoshima as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Schumann et al. (US20200185702A1), hereinafter Schumann.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ise teaches the electrode according to claim 7, but does not specifically teach that the solid electrolyte and the solid electrolyte-containing particles comprise a same substance
Schumann, however, teaches of an electrode active material (Fig. 1a, 12 [0050]) that is partially coated with a solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1a, 14 [0050]) This solid electrolyte layer comprises a garnet of the general formula Li7-xLa3Zr2-xMxO12 where M is Nb, Ta or a mixture of the two elements and 2≥x≥0, in particular 1.5≥x≥0.5 [0011]. This range falls within the material of Yoshima’s solid electrolyte that comprises the material Li7La3Zr2O12 (Yoshima [0110])
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to substitute the Ise solid electrolyte-containing particles with the Schumann solid electrolyte-containing particles because they both function as lithium-ion conducting solid electrolytes (Schumann [0011]) and (Ise [0064]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case suitable material for solid electrolyte-containing particles used in a solid electrolyte layer covering an active material particle, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
In addition, In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established since Ise teaches that complete coverage of the core particle surface is advantageous, and absent any recognition of the benefits achieved by exposing portions of the surfaces of the niobium titanium oxide particles, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to arrive at the claimed configuration in which,
at least a part of a portion other than the part of surfaces of the niobium titanium oxide particles being exposed on a surface of the electrode, as recited in amended independent claim 1.
However, the embodiment of a partially covered active material particle in [0067] of Ise still teaches the claimed limitation, even if it is not the preferred embodiment as taught by the prior art. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). (MPEP 2123).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/YVONNE WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
