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 .
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 1-10, 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander Groombridge et al (WO 2021/245411, here after 411).
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected. 411 teaches a method of making an electrode, the
method comprising: providing a starting H-Nb2O5 material [page 12 lines 26-31];
jet milling and classifying the starting material [page 17 lines 12-24] to provide a
processed H-Nb2O5 material and forming an electrode comprising the processed
H-Nb2O5 material as an active electrode material [page 15 lines 12-15]; wherein the
processes H-Nb2O5 having D10 of at least 1 um [page 11 lines 33-34], and D90 of no
more than 20 um [page 11 lines 38-39]. Although 411 does not teach the D50 is 2.2-15
um, however teaches the D50 is 1-20 um [page 11 lines 26-27]. Overlapping ranges are
prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that
corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention was made to have a method of 411 when D50 is 15 um (or 12 um for claim 4),
because one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping
range that corresponds to the claimed range in absence of criticality. A particle size
distribution span (D90-D10)/D50 of 1.26(or 1.58 or claim 4) 0(considering D50=15
um, D10=1 um and D90=20 um].
Claim 2 is rejected. Considering normal particle size distribution and D10, D15,
and D95, the relation between D95, and D5 has been met(D95-D5)/D50<2.5.
Claim 7 is rejected as 411 teaches processed H-Nb2O5 material has a BET
surface area 1-20 m2/g [page 12 lines 11-21].
Claim 8 is rejected as 411 teaches the starting (H-Nb2O5) material has a D50
particle diameter of >20um [page 17 lines 18-21].
Claim 9 is rejected as 411 teaches the starting H-Nb2O5 material has a phase of
substantially pure H-Nb205(100 wt.%) [page 16 lines 32-35].
Claim 10 is rejected as 411 teaches the intensity ratio of the peak in the XRD
pattern of the processed H-Nb205 material at about 23.7° 2Ɵ to the peak at about 24.4°
is 7[Sample 2 in fig. 1]. in the range of 0.7-1.3.
Claim 13 is rejected as 411 teaches forming the electrode comprises forming a
slurry of the active material (processed H-Nb2O5) in a solvent, depositing the slurry on
a current collector, and removing the solvent [page 28 lines 5-10].
Claim 14 is rejected as 411 teaches the slurry comprises at least one further
component selected from a binder, a conductive additive [page 28 lines 5-10], a
different active electrode material[abstract].
Claim 15 is rejected as 411 teaches the processed H-Nb2O5 material is
coated with carbon [page 12 lines 37-38] before forming the electrode.
Claim 16 is rejected as 411 teaches the (processed H-Nb2O5 material) forms at
least 50 wt.% of the total active electrode material in the electrode [page 12 lines 22-
25].
Claim 17 is rejected as 411 teaches (the processed) H-Nb2O5 material is the
sole active electrode material (100 wt%) in the electrode [page 12 lines 22-25].
Claims 18-19 are rejected as 411 teaches forming an electrochemical cell
(battery) comprising the electrode [page 1 lines 3-5], and an electrolyte disposed
between the anode and cathode [page 15 lines 20-24].
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason claim 21 is rejected. Although
411 does not teach N/P>1, however a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the
claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary
skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals
Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 f.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP
2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected as 411 teaches the N/P ratio is 1[page 23 last 3 lines, table 3
sample 2*, page 34 lines 9-11].
Claim 22 is rejected as 411 teaches the electrochemical cell is a metal-ion
battery such as a lithium-ion battery or a sodium-ion battery [page 15 lines 23-24], or
wherein the electrochemical cell is a lithium-ion battery.
Claim 23 is rejected as 411 teaches a method of making an electrode, therefore
the product would be an electrode.
Claim 24 is rejected as 411 teaches limitation of claim 18 and therefore the
battery obtained from electrode.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander
Groombridge et al (WO 2021/245411, here after 411), further in view of Yan Zhao et al
(WO 2020/151143, here after 143).
Claim 11 is rejected. 411 teaches a step of milling and/or classifying the mixed
niobium oxide [page 18 lines 28-30], but does not teach the jet milling comprises
fluidized bed jet milling. 143 teaches a method of making a battery and also teaches
crushing(milling) oxide material comprising niobium oxide with fluidized bed jet milling
[page 5 lines 11-14, page 6 lines 12-13]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
411, where jet mill is a fluidized bed jet milling, because it is suitable for milling niobium
oxide compound for making batteries.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander
Groombridge et al (WO 2021/245411, here after 411), further in view of Manabu
Hayashi et al (Japanese Patent: 4765253, here after 253).
Claim 12 is rejected. 411 teaches a step of air classifying the mixed niobium
oxide [page 18 lines 28-30], but does not teach classification with centrifugal forced
vortex air classifier. 253 teaches a method of making an electrode battery comprising
niobium oxide and also teaches classification material is done with centrifugal forced
vortex air classifier [page 15 last paragraph, page 9 lines 4-7]. Therefore, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to
have a method of 411, where jet mill is forced vortex air classifier, because it is suitable
method for classification in making electrode for batteries.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/24/26, with respect to U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C 112(b) of claims 2-11, 16, and 22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed U. S. C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues examples 2,3, and 7 shows criticality and unexpected results. The examiner disagrees; as the applicant confirm in page 7 that the result is related to fluidized bed jet milling and classification, where claim 11 requires spiral jet milling. The applicant did not show the unexpected results that is commensurate in scope with the claims. Only examples 2-3, and 7-9 can be compared together (if the condition of fluidized bed jet milling process are the same except of changing only one parameter for example like milling time or ratio of the material to milling media) wherein in examples 8 and 9 particle size are much larger than examples 2-3, and 7. Claim do not require capacity of 185 mAh/g and in fact examples 2-3, 7-8 all show high capacity of more than 181 mAh/g.
The applicant argument regrading 411 teaches ball milling and not jet milling is not persuasive, 411 teaches jet milling and ball milling [page 17 lines 12-16]and either of them can be used for mixing materials as discussed in 411.
411 teaches claim 1 limitation and meet relation between D50, D10, and D90 as claim 1 is requires in absence of criticality.
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights