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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/US2023/031020. Amended claims 3-4, 6, 8-9, 12-16, 10-20 and canceled claim 21 are noted in the preliminary amendment dated 12/10/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 2 line 3, the word should be --mass--.
In claim 3 line 2, the claim requires “further comprises and anatase crystal phase”. The examiner questions whether claim 3 should depend on claim 2 instead of claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
In claim 1 line 10, from which claims 2-20 depend, the term “the heated powder” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 1 line 11, the term “the acid-soaked powder” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 6 line 3, the word should be --and-- to separate elements in proper Markush terminology.
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.
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 1-8, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hareyama (2002/0058141) in view of JP 2017-149608 (see English translation).
Hareyama teaches a method of forming titania (title) by mixing a titanium source such as titanium oxide and a potassium source such as potassium oxide to form a mixture (0020) for use in batteries (0036). A heat treatment of 400 to 1600oC and an acid treatment are used (0003, 0021, 0024). However, the reference fails to teach a powder.
JP’608 teaches a manufacturing method of titanium dioxide composite powder comprising preparing a raw material mixture by mixing a titanium source and a potassium source at a molar of TiO/KO of 2.9-3.3 in terms of oxide followed by preparing and acid treating and heat treating potassium titanate composite powder (abstract). It would have been obvious to incorporate heat treating and acid treatment in Hareyama with the expectation of success because JP’608 teaches of forming a titanium dioxide powder using heat treating and acid treatment.
With respect to the molar ratio, it is noted that JP’608 teaches a molar of TiO/KO of 2.9-3.3 in terms of oxide, which is outside the claimed ratio. To vary same would have been obvious given the teaching of JP’608 in the absence of a showing of criticality with the claimed molar ratio.
Regarding claim 2, JP’608 teaches a monoclinic crystal structure (example 1 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, JP’608 teaches an anatase phase (example 1 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Hareyama teaches titanium oxide (0020).
Regarding claim 5, Hareyama teaches anatase titanium oxide (0050).
Regarding claims 6-7, JP’608 teaches potassium carbonate (Description of Embodiments 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, the applicant requires a specific molar ratio. It is noted that JP’608 teaches a molar of TiO/KO of 2.9-3.3 in terms of oxide, which is outside the claimed ratio. To vary same would have been obvious given the teaching of JP’608 in the absence of a showing of criticality with the claimed molar ratio.
Regarding claim 13, Hareyama teaches elevating the temperature to 1050oC (0050).
Regarding claim 14, Hareyama teaches sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid (0021).
Regarding claim 15, Hareyama teaches a heat treatment temperature of 400 to 1600oC (0024).
Claims 9-12, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hareyama (2002/0058141) and JP 2017-149608 (see English translation) in view of Yadav (2005/0191492). The combination of Hareyama/JP’608 fails to teach a dopant.
Yadav teaches a titanium nanoparticle (title) in which a titanium precursor and a potassium precursor is used to make titanium oxide powder (0038). In one embodiment, a dopant is used (0079). It would have been obvious to utilize a dopant in the titanium oxide of the combination with the expectation of success depending on the final use of the product because Yadav teaches of using a dopant in titanium oxide.
Regarding claim 10, Yadav teaches barium and magnesium (0113).
Regarding claim 11, Yadav teaches iron and nickel (0113).
Regarding claim 12, the applicant requires a specific molar ratio. To vary same would have been obvious given the teaching of JP’608 in the absence of a showing of criticality with the claimed molar ratio.
Regarding claim 16, Yadav teaches energy storage (0038) and JP’608 teaches a monoclinic crystal structure (example 1 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Hareyama teaches a binder (0002-0004) and JP’608 teaches a monoclinic crystal structure (example 1 3rd paragraph).
Claims 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hareyama (2002/0058141) and JP 2017-149608 (see English translation) and Yadav (2005/0191492) in view of CN 105428722. The combination of Hareyama/JP’608 fails/Yadav to teach the claimed energy storage device.
CN’722 teaches a lithium ion battery (title) as an energy storage device (paragraph bridging pp.1-2). It would have been obvious to utilize a lithium ion cell as the energy storage device in the combination with the expectation of success because CN’722 teaches of using a lithium ion battery as an energy storage device.
Regarding claim 18, CN’722 teaches an electric bus (p.2 first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, CN’722 teaches organic electrolyte (p.3 3rd full paragraph).
Wang et al. (Results in Physics article) teaches a method of forming titanium dioxide(B)/anatase composite oxides for electrode materials in lithium ion batteries using intercalation and solid state chemical reaction and has been cited as relevant art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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 (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 02/20/2026
Prosecution Insights