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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 05/28/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there was no indication that the content of the claims were interpreted in light of the description when considering the assertion of a lack of unity and therefore has not met the burden necessary to support the assertion; there is a technical relationship that involves the same special technical feature and it is this feature that defines the contribution which each of the groups, taken as a whole, makes over the prior art; ISA (International Searching Authority) searched all the claims together.
This is not found persuasive. The examiner may make a lack of unity requirement even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA (MPEP 1893.03(d)). The examiner agrees that claims should and are interpreted in light of the specification under broadest reasonable interpretation, however, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111.01 (II). In the restriction requirement 04/08/26, the claims were treated under BRI and the shared features do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Oh et al. (“Slurry-Fabricable…” NPL of record). Thus, the features are not special as argued and do not make a contribution over the prior art. Furthermore, the rejection of claim 1 below further supports the conclusion that the shared features are not special and thus:
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/29/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the crossed-out information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 20220263129A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses a titanium-containing oxide powder ([0035]) whose main component is a titanium-containing oxide represented by Li4Ti5O12 ([0063] lithium titanium oxide (Li4Ti5O12)), the titanium-containing oxide powder containing the titanium-containing oxide particles (24) (the instant application constitutes the titanium-containing oxide as the powder along with the solvate see instant spec [0035]) and a solvate ionic liquid ([0082] electrolyte gel 150 includes solvate ionic liquid), the solvate ionic liquid comprising a Li salt and an organic solvent ([0076] solvate ionic liquid forms when a salt including the cation 108 and anion 102 is combined with the ether 106 as a solvent, salt is lithium).
Regarding claim 4, Lu further discloses wherein Al is present on particle surfaces of the titanium- containing oxide powder ([0067] coated with Al2O3).
Regarding claim 5, Lu further discloses wherein the Li salt is at least one type of Li salt selected from a group consisting of LiPF6 ([0076] lithium hexafluorophosphate).
Regarding claim 6, Lu further discloses wherein the Li salt comprises at least two types or more of Li salts LiPF6 and LiBF4 ([0076]).
Regarding claim 7, Lu further discloses wherein the Li salt comprises at least one type of Li salt LiPF6/LiBF4 ([0076]), and the Li salt further comprises at least one type of Li salt having an S=O group ([0073] see anion; [0074] cation is lithium).
Regarding claim 8, Lu further discloses wherein the organic solvent is an ether compound ([0072] 106).
Regarding claim 9, Lu further discloses wherein a molar ratio of the Li salt to the organic solvent is 0.3 or more and 2.5 or less ([0075] equimolar concentrations).
Regarding claim 10, Lu further discloses wherein a proportion of the solvate ionic liquid to the titanium-containing oxide powder is 0.1 mass% or more and 30 mass% or less ([0063] or [0066] about 10 wt% to about 40 wt%; [0048] "about" may include variations of 5% or less).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20220263129A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Erickson et al. (WO2016159941A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lu discloses the titanium-containing oxide powder may comprise one or more materials [0063] and thus there are primary and secondary particles but does not disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Erickson discloses titanium-containing oxide materials for electrodes (abstract, [0035] Li4Ti5O12) wherein D50 of primary particles ([0040] LTO is present as primary particles) corresponding to a volume accumulation of 50% in a volume-based particle size distribution (definition of D50) of the titanium-containing oxide powder is 0.5 µm or more ([0090] D50 particle size of 1-10 µm or 10-50 µm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the LTO (Li4Ti5O12) particles in Lu wherein D50 of primary particles corresponding to a volume accumulation of 50% in a volume-based particle size distribution of the titanium-containing oxide powder is 0.5 µm or more as taught by Erickson because utilizing one known LTO in place of another to also form an electrode is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Utilizing laser diffraction scattering method to determine D50 is the most common method for fine powders, the instant specification does not disclose how this technique would reveal a distinctive, hidden structural property that differs from the prior art to give it vital patentable weight. Because modified Lu discloses the D50 of the primary particles, it discloses the structural features required of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Lu discloses the titanium-containing oxide powder but does not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Erickson discloses titanium-containing oxide materials for electrodes (abstract, [0035] Li4Ti5O12) wherein the powder has a specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more and 10 m2/g or less ([0072] or [0098] surface area of positive electrode active material of about 5.3 m2/g).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the titanium-containing oxide powder in Lu such that it has a specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more and 10 m2/g or less as taught by Erickson because utilizing one known LTO in place of another to also form an electrode is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the specific surface area is a variable with respect to the desired ease of processing and degradation over time ([0048]). As the surface area decreases, degradation over time also decreases with ease of processing also decreasing, thus, without showing unexpected results, the claimed specific surface area cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the specific surface area of the titanium-containing oxide powder of Lu to obtain the desired balance between ease of processing and degradation over time (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN D LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-4pm, 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
