Patent Application 17769716 - LINA-ION BATTERY ANODE MATERIALS - Rejection
Patent Application 17769716 - LINA-ION BATTERY ANODE MATERIALS
Title: LI/NA-ION BATTERY ANODE MATERIALS
Application Information
- Invention Title: LI/NA-ION BATTERY ANODE MATERIALS
- Application Number: 17769716
- Submission Date: 2025-04-09T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-04-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-04-15T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 429
- National Sub-Class: 220000
- Examiner Employee Number: 95686
- Art Unit: 1729
- Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 9
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicantâs arguments, see Remarks Page 7, filed 01/17/2025, with respect to the objection to claim 15 have been fully considered. The objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claim 15.
Applicantâs arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/17/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 â
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (CN110137493A, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an active electrode material expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z; wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient; wherein M consists of one of Mg, Cr, W, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd; y satisfies 0.5 †y †49; and z satisfies 4 †z †124 (oxygen-deficient Zn3Nb2O8, P7, 16, 24).
Regarding claim 24, Chen discloses their electrode active material to be used within a lithium battery (P2) as an anode electrode active material (P10, 20). While Chen does not explicitly disclose the lithium battery also includes a cathode and electrolyte, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a cathode, anode, and electrolyte are all inherent features of a lithium battery and, therefore, the lithium battery of Chen would include a cathode, anode, and electrolyte.
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 1-7, 14-15, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cava et al (Lithium insertion, electrical conductivity, and chemical substitution in various crystallographic shear structures, as give in the 06/21/2022 IDS) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode).
Regarding claim 1, Cava discloses an active electrode material expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z; wherein M consists of one of Mg, Cr, W, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd; y satisfies 0.5 †y †49; and z satisfies 4 †z †124 (
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
, Wadsley-Roth Phase, Page 408, Experimental).
However, Cava does not disclose wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient.
Wang teaches
L
i
3
V
O
4
(LVO) as a promising intercalation-type anode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract). Wang teaches introducing oxygen vacancies into LVO, and, with the formation of surface oxygen vacancies, the surface energy of LVO increased dramatically (Page 5369, Introduction).
Wang teaches improved lithium ion storage performance of oxygen-deficient samples (Page 5373-5374, Conclusions). Wang teaches this improved electrochemical performance could be attributed to the introduction of oxygen vacancies, which might have served as nucleation or catalysis centers to facilitate fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation process (Page 5374, Conclusions).
While Wang is directed to
L
i
3
V
O
4
rather than
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
, Wang teaches oxygen vacancies improve performance of a material by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process, and if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as induce surface oxygen vacancies in a material), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as improve performance by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang and modified the
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
of Cava such that it has oxygen vacancies (therefore, is oxygen deficient) on the surface, given this would improve the electrochemical performance of the material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cava meets the limitation wherein z is defined as z=(zâ-zâα) wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5) and modified Cava has an oxygen-deficient structure, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cava meets the limitation wherein M consists of one of Mo, W, Al, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, Cr, Cu, K, Mg, Ni, or Hf (
M
=
M
o
,
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
, Wadsley-Roth Phase, Page 408, Experimental).
Regarding claims 4-7, modified Cava meets the limitations wherein the active material is expressed by the general formula [M]x[Nb]y[O](z'-z'a), selected as
M
o
N
b
12
O
(
33
-
33
α
)
wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
, Wadsley-Roth Phase, Page 408, Experimental; modified Cava has an oxygen-deficient structure, therefore, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 14, Cava does not explicitly state wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material as determined by X-ray diffraction corresponds to the crystal structure of the unmodified form of the active electrode material, wherein the unmodified form is expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z wherein the unmodified form is not oxygen deficient.
However, Cava does disclose Wadsley-Roth structured
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
, and the modification of Cava via Wang made the material oxygen deficient, therefore, there would be a non-oxygen deficient counterpart to
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
such as
M
2
V
I
N
b
12
O
33
.
Regarding claim 15, Cava discloses wherein at least some of the material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure or wherein substantially all of the active electrode material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure (
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
, Wadsley-Roth Phase, Page 408, Experimental).
Regarding claim 22, Cava discloses wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material, as determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, corresponds to the crystal structure of
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
(given that the material is
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
, the crystal structure would correspond to
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
).
Regarding claim 23, Cava discloses lithium can be inserted into active material, therefore the active electrode material includes Li (
L
i
14.5
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
, Page 408, Experimental and Results).
Claims 1-6, 8, 13-15, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saritha et al (Electrochemical Li insertion studies on
W
N
b
12
O
33
- A shear ReO3 type structure, as give in the 06/21/2022 IDS) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode).
Regarding claim 1, Saritha discloses an active electrode material expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z; wherein M consists of one of Mg, Cr, W, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd; y satisfies 0.5 †y †49; and z satisfies 4 †z †124 (
W
N
b
12
O
33
, Page 988-989, âWadsleyâRoth phases are chemically related compounds with different extents of crystallographic shear. âShear ReO3â is one of the structure types adopted by themâ, Page 988, âIn the present study,
W
N
b
12
O
33
phase, which crystallizes with the shear ReO3 structureâ, Page 992).
However, Saritha does not disclose wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient.
Wang teaches
L
i
3
V
O
4
(LVO) as a promising intercalation-type anode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract). Wang teaches introducing oxygen vacancies into LVO, and, with the formation of surface oxygen vacancies, the surface energy of LVO increased dramatically (Page 5369, Introduction).
Wang teaches improved lithium ion storage performance of oxygen-deficient samples (Page 5373-5374, Conclusions). Wang teaches this improved electrochemical performance could be attributed to the introduction of oxygen vacancies, which might have served as nucleation or catalysis centers to facilitate fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation process (Page 5374, Conclusions).
While Wang is directed to
L
i
3
V
O
4
rather than
W
N
b
12
O
33
, Wang teaches oxygen vacancies improve performance of a material by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process, and if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as induce surface oxygen vacancies in a material), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as improve performance by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang and modified the
W
N
b
12
O
33
of Saritha such that it has oxygen vacancies (therefore, is oxygen deficient) on the surface, given this would improve the electrochemical performance of the material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Saritha meets the limitation wherein z is defined as z=(zâ-zâα) wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5) and modified Saritha has an oxygen-deficient structure, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, Saritha discloses wherein M consists of one of Mo, W, Al, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, Cr, Cu, K, Mg, Ni, or Hf (
M
=
W
,
W
N
b
12
O
33
).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 8, modified Saritha meets the limitation the active material expressed by the general formula [M]x[Nb]y[O](z'-z'a), selected as
W
N
b
12
O
(
33
-
33
α
)
wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (
W
N
b
12
O
33
, Page 988-989; modified Saritha has an oxygen-deficient structure, therefore, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 13, Saritha discloses wherein the active electrode material is expressed by the general formula [W][Nb]y[O]z (
W
N
b
12
O
33
, Page 988-989).
Regarding claim 14, Saritha does not explicitly state wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material as determined by X-ray diffraction corresponds to the crystal structure of the unmodified form of the active electrode material, wherein the unmodified form is expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z wherein the unmodified form is not oxygen deficient.
However, Saritha does disclose
W
N
b
12
O
33
which crystallizes with the shear ReO3 structure, and the modification of Saritha via Wang made the material oxygen deficient, therefore, there would be a non-oxygen deficient counterpart to
M
o
N
b
12
O
33
such as
M
2
V
I
N
b
12
O
33
.
Regarding claim 15, Saritha discloses wherein at least some of the material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure or wherein substantially all of the active electrode material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure (
W
N
b
12
O
33
, Page 988-989, âWadsleyâRoth phases are chemically related compounds with different extents of crystallographic shear. âShear ReO3â is one of the structure types adopted by themâ, Page 988, âIn the present study,
W
N
b
12
O
33
phase, which crystallizes with the shear ReO3 structureâ, Page 992).
Regarding claim 22, Saritha discloses wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material, as determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, corresponds to the crystal structure of
W
N
b
12
O
33
(given that the material is
W
N
b
12
O
33
, the crystal structure would correspond to
W
N
b
12
O
33
).
Regarding claim 23, Saritha discloses lithium can be inserted into the active material, therefore the active electrode material includes Li (Conclusion, Page 992).
Claims 1-4, 9, 15, 22-23, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith et al (Niobium tungsten oxides for high-rate lithium-ion energy storage, as give in the 06/21/2022 IDS) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode).
Regarding claim 1, Griffith discloses an active electrode material expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z; wherein M consists of one of Mg, Cr, W, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd; y satisfies 0.5 †y †49; and z satisfies 4 †z †124 (
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
, Abstract, Page 557, 560).
However, Griffith does not disclose wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient.
Wang teaches
L
i
3
V
O
4
(LVO) as a promising intercalation-type anode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract). Wang teaches introducing oxygen vacancies into LVO, and, with the formation of surface oxygen vacancies, the surface energy of LVO increased dramatically (Page 5369, Introduction).
Wang teaches improved lithium ion storage performance of oxygen-deficient samples (Page 5373-5374, Conclusions). Wang teaches this improved electrochemical performance could be attributed to the introduction of oxygen vacancies, which might have served as nucleation or catalysis centers to facilitate fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation process (Page 5374, Conclusions).
While Wang is directed to
L
i
3
V
O
4
rather than
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
, Wang teaches oxygen vacancies improve performance of a material by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process, and if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as induce surface oxygen vacancies in a material), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as improve performance by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang and modified the
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
of Griffith such that it has oxygen vacancies (therefore, is oxygen deficient) on the surface, given this would improve the electrochemical performance of the material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Griffith meets the limitation wherein z is defined as z=(zâ-zâα) wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5) and modified Griffith has an oxygen-deficient structure, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, Griffith discloses wherein M consists of one of Mo, W, Al, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, Cr, Cu, K, Mg, Ni, or Hf (
M
=
W
,
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
, Abstract, Page 557, 560).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, modified Griffith meets the limitation the active material expressed by the general formula [M]x[Nb]y[O](z'-z'a), selected as
W
5
N
b
16
O
(
55
-
55
α
)
wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
, Abstract, Page 557, 560; modified Griffith has an oxygen-deficient structure, therefore, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 15, Griffith discloses wherein at least some of the material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure or wherein substantially all of the active electrode material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure (Griffith discloses
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
having a crystallographic shear structure, Abstract, Page 557, 560).
Regarding claim 22, Griffith discloses wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material, as determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, corresponds to the crystal structure of
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
(given that the material is
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
, the crystal structure would correspond to
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
).
Regarding claim 23, Griffith discloses lithium can be inserted into the active material, therefore the active electrode material includes Li (Abstract, P557).
Regarding claim 36, modified Griffith meets the limitation wherein the active material is
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5), Griffith discloses
W
5
N
b
16
O
55
, Abstract, Page 557, 560, and modified Griffith has an oxygen-deficient structure).
Claims 1-6, 10, 15, 22-23, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saritha et al (Electrochemical analysis of tungsten bronze-type phases, W9Nb8O47 and W7Nb4O31, synthesised by sol-gel method, as give in the 06/21/2022 IDS, hereinafter referred to as âD. Sarithaâ) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode).
Regarding claim 1, D. Saritha discloses an active electrode material expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z; wherein M consists of one of Mg, Cr, W, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd; y satisfies 0.5 †y †49; and z satisfies 4 †z †124 (
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
, Abstract, Page 218, 223).
However, D. Saritha does not disclose wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient.
Wang teaches
L
i
3
V
O
4
(LVO) as a promising intercalation-type anode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract). Wang teaches introducing oxygen vacancies into LVO, and, with the formation of surface oxygen vacancies, the surface energy of LVO increased dramatically (Page 5369, Introduction).
Wang teaches improved lithium ion storage performance of oxygen-deficient samples (Page 5373-5374, Conclusions). Wang teaches this improved electrochemical performance could be attributed to the introduction of oxygen vacancies, which might have served as nucleation or catalysis centers to facilitate fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation process (Page 5374, Conclusions).
While Wang is directed to
L
i
3
V
O
4
rather than
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
, Wang teaches oxygen vacancies improve performance of a material by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process, and if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as induce surface oxygen vacancies in a material), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as improve performance by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang and modified the
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
of D. Saritha such that it has oxygen vacancies (therefore, is oxygen deficient) on the surface, given this would improve the electrochemical performance of the material.
Regarding claim 2, modified D. Saritha meets the limitation wherein z is defined as z=(zâ-zâα) wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5) and modified D. Saritha has an oxygen-deficient structure, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, D. Saritha discloses wherein M consists of one of Mo, W, Al, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, Cr, Cu, K, Mg, Ni, or Hf (
M
=
W
,
W
N
b
12
O
33
, Page 218, 223).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 10, modified D. Saritha meets the limitation the active material expressed by the general formula [M]x[Nb]y[O](z'-z'a), selected as
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
(
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
, Abstract, Page 218, 223; modified D. Saritha has an oxygen-deficient structure, therefore, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 15, D. Saritha discloses wherein at least some of the material has a tetragonal tungsten bronze-type crystal structure or wherein substantially all of the active electrode material has a tetragonal tungsten bronze-type crystal structure (tetragonal tungsten bronze-type structure
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
, Page 218, 223).
Regarding claim 22, D. Saritha discloses wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material, as determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, corresponds to the crystal structure of
W
N
b
12
O
33
(given that the material is
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
, the crystal structure would correspond to
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
).
Regarding claim 23, D. Saritha discloses lithium can be inserted into the active material, therefore the active electrode material includes Li (Introduction, Page 218, Conclusion, P223).
Regarding claim 36, D. Saritha discloses wherein the active material is
W
7
N
b
4
O
31
wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5) and modified D. Saritha has an oxygen-deficient structure).
Claims 1-5, 11, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 20200112018 A1) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an active electrode material expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z; wherein M consists of one of Mg, Cr, W, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd; y satisfies 0.5 †y †49; and z satisfies 4 †z †124 (
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
, Abstract P28, 31-32).
However, Zhang does not disclose wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient.
Wang teaches
L
i
3
V
O
4
(LVO) as a promising intercalation-type anode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract). Wang teaches introducing oxygen vacancies into LVO, and, with the formation of surface oxygen vacancies, the surface energy of LVO increased dramatically (Page 5369, Introduction).
Wang teaches improved lithium ion storage performance of oxygen-deficient samples (Page 5373-5374, Conclusions). Wang teaches this improved electrochemical performance could be attributed to the introduction of oxygen vacancies, which might have served as nucleation or catalysis centers to facilitate fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation process (Page 5374, Conclusions).
While Wang is directed to
L
i
3
V
O
4
rather than
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
, Wang teaches oxygen vacancies improve performance of a material by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process, and if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as induce surface oxygen vacancies in a material), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as improve performance by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang and modified the
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
of Zhang such that it has oxygen vacancies (therefore, is oxygen deficient) on the surface, given this would improve the electrochemical performance of the material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhang meets the limitation wherein z is defined as z=(zâ-zâα) wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5) and modified Zhang has an oxygen-deficient structure, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses wherein M consists of one of Mo, W, Al, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, Cr, Cu, K, Mg, Ni, or Hf (
M
=
Z
n
,
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
, Abstract P28, 31-32).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 11, modified Zhang meets the limitation the active material expressed by the general formula [M]x[Nb]y[O](z'-z'a), selected as
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
(
87
-
87
α
)
(
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
, Abstract P28, 31-32; modified Zhang has an oxygen-deficient structure, therefore, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses wherein at least some of the material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure or wherein substantially all of the active electrode material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5) and Zhang discloses
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
having a shearing ReO3 structure, P28, 31-32).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang discloses wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material, as determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, corresponds to the crystal structure of
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
(given that the material is
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
, the crystal structure would correspond to
Z
n
2
N
b
34
O
87
).
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-15, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al (New Anode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Aluminum Niobate(AlNb11O29), as give in the 06/21/2022 IDS) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode).
Regarding claim 1, Lou discloses an active electrode material expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z; wherein M consists of one of Mg, Cr, W, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd; y satisfies 0.5 †y †49; and z satisfies 4 †z †124 (
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
, Abstract, Page 6089).
However, Lou does not disclose wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient.
Wang teaches
L
i
3
V
O
4
(LVO) as a promising intercalation-type anode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract). Wang teaches introducing oxygen vacancies into LVO, and, with the formation of surface oxygen vacancies, the surface energy of LVO increased dramatically (Page 5369, Introduction).
Wang teaches improved lithium ion storage performance of oxygen-deficient samples (Page 5373-5374, Conclusions). Wang teaches this improved electrochemical performance could be attributed to the introduction of oxygen vacancies, which might have served as nucleation or catalysis centers to facilitate fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation process (Page 5374, Conclusions).
While Wang is directed to
L
i
3
V
O
4
rather than
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
, Wang teaches oxygen vacancies improve performance of a material by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process, and if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as induce surface oxygen vacancies in a material), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as improve performance by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang and modified the
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
of Lou such that it has oxygen vacancies (therefore, is oxygen deficient) on the surface, given this would improve the electrochemical performance of the material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lou meets the limitation wherein z is defined as z=(zâ-zâα) wherein α satisfies 0 < α †0.05 (given Applicantâs specification states α shows an active electrical material to be oxygen deficient (Page 5) and modified Lou has an oxygen-deficient structure, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, Lou discloses wherein M consists of one of Mo, W, Al, Zn, Ga, Ge, Ta, Cr, Cu, K, Mg, Ni, or Hf (
M
=
A
l
,
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
,
A
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
,
P
a
g
e
6089
)
.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 12, modified Lou meets the limitation the active material expressed by the general formula [M]x[Nb]y[O](z'-z'a), selected as
A
l
N
b
11
O
(
29
-
29
α
)
(
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
, Abstract, Page 6089; modified Lou has an oxygen-deficient structure, therefore, α would be greater than 0 which overlaps the claimed range and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 14, Lou does not explicitly state wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material as determined by X-ray diffraction corresponds to the crystal structure of the unmodified form of the active electrode material, wherein the unmodified form is expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z wherein the unmodified form is not oxygen deficient.
However, Lou does disclose
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
and the modification of Lou via Wang made the material oxygen deficient, therefore, there would be a non-oxygen deficient counterpart to
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
such as
M
2
I
I
I
N
b
11
O
29
.
Regarding claim 15, Lou discloses wherein at least some of the material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure or wherein substantially all of the active electrode material has a Wadsley-Roth crystal structure (Lou discloses
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
having a structure like shear ReO3 titanium niobate but significantly higher in Li conductivity, Abstract, Page 6089).
Regarding claim 22, Lou discloses wherein the crystal structure of the active electrode material, as determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, corresponds to the crystal structure of
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
(given that the material is
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
, the crystal structure would correspond to
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
).
Regarding claim 23, Lou discloses lithium can be inserted into the active material, therefore the active electrode material includes Li (P6092, 6093).
Claims 1, 16-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al (US 20160036040 A1) in view of Lou et al (New Anode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Aluminum Niobate(AlNb11O29), as give in the 06/21/2022 IDS) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode).
Regarding claims 1, 16-19, and 24, Takami discloses an electrochemical device comprising an anode (negative electrode 4 in Fig. 4), a cathode (positive electrode 3 in Fig. 4), and an electrolyte disposed between the anode and the cathode (separator 5 in Fig. 4 which is a porous film, therefore the electrolyte could permeate and sit in the separator between the anode and cathode), wherein the anode comprises an active electrode material (titanium-containing oxide particles, P16, 75, 80, as drawn to claim 24).
Takami discloses wherein the active electrode material comprises a plurality of primary crystallites (P16, primary particles within secondary particles), wherein the average diameter of the primary crystallites are from 10 nm to 10 ”m (0.1 to 0.8 ”m, âthe diffusion distance of lithium ions in the active material is shortened, and the specific surface area increasesâ, P28, as drawn to claims 16-17).
Takami discloses wherein some or all of the primary crystallites are agglomerated into secondary particles (P16, primary particles within secondary particles), and the average diameter of the secondary particles is from 1 ”m to 30 ”m (7 to 20 ÎŒm, âwhen the average particle size is within this range, a negative electrode having a high density is produced while the pressing force during manufacturing the negative electrode is kept low, and the stretch of the negative electrode current collector can be suppressedâ, P29, as drawn to claim 18).
Takami discloses wherein the active electrode material comprises a carbon coating formed on the surface of the primary crystallites and/or secondary particles (âcovering of the secondary particle surface with a carbon material is preferred for reducing the negative electrode resistanceâ, P41, as drawn to claim 19).
However, Takami discloses the active electrode material to be a titanium-containing oxide, not an active electrode material expressed by the general formula [M][Nb]y[O]z; wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient; wherein M consists of one of Mg, Cr, W, Mo, Cu, Ga, Ge, Ca, K, Ni, Co, Al, Sn, Mn, Ce, Sb, Y, La, Hf, Ta, Zn, In, or Cd; y satisfies 0.5 †y †49; and z satisfies 4 †z †124.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lou teaches niobates have been shown to be promising anode materials because they possess not only a high theoretical lithium-ion-storage capacity, but also a safe operating potential (Page 6089 Left Column). Lou teaches titanium niobates have been shown to show interesting electrochemical properties, but particularly pristine
T
i
2
N
b
10
O
29
, suïŹers from poor rate capability owing to its low-charge conductivity (Page 6089 Both Columns). Lou teaches because of this, it is important to develop new niobate compounds having improved electrochemical properties (Page 6089 Right Column).
Lou teaches
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
possessing a structure like shear ReO3 titanium niobate but significantly higher in Li conductivity (Page 6089). Lou teaches
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
exhibits significantly improved electrochemical properties that possesses a large interlayer spacing so that Li diffusion is able to happen faster (Conclusion, Page 6094). Lou further teaches
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
has a high reversible capacity, safe operating potential, high initial Coulombic efficiency, high rate capability and prominent cycling stability (Conclusion, Page 6094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the active material of titanium-containing oxide with an active material of a titanium-containing oxide
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
, given Lou teaches it has a high reversible capacity, safe operating potential, high initial Coulombic efficiency, high rate capability and prominent cycling stability and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143,
Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
However, modified Takami does not meet the limitation wherein the active electrode material is oxygen deficient.
Wang teaches
L
i
3
V
O
4
(LVO) as a promising intercalation-type anode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract). Wang teaches introducing oxygen vacancies into LVO, and, with the formation of surface oxygen vacancies, the surface energy of LVO increased dramatically (Page 5369, Introduction).
Wang teaches improved lithium ion storage performance of oxygen-deficient samples (Page 5373-5374, Conclusions). Wang teaches this improved electrochemical performance could be attributed to the introduction of oxygen vacancies, which might have served as nucleation or catalysis centers to facilitate fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation process (Page 5374, Conclusions).
While Wang is directed to
L
i
3
V
O
4
rather than
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
, Wang teaches oxygen vacancies improve performance of a material by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process, and if a technique has been used to improve one device (such as induce surface oxygen vacancies in a material), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (such as improve performance by facilitating fast phase transformation during the lithium ion intercalation / deintercalation process), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Wang and modified the
A
l
N
b
11
O
29
of modified Takami such that it has oxygen vacancies (therefore, is oxygen deficient) on the surface, given this would improve the electrochemical performance of the material.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al (US 20160036040 A1) in view of Lou et al (New Anode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Aluminum Niobate(AlNb11O29), as give in the 06/21/2022 IDS) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode) as applied to claim 19, in view of Tabuchi et al (US 20060166098 A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Takami does not disclose wherein the carbon coating is present in an amount of up to 5 w/w%, based on the total weight of the active electrode material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tabuchi teaches negative electrode including a silicon-containing particle coated with carbon (P32-36). Tabuchi teaches providing the carbon coating greater than 40 wt. % causes initial discharge capacities to be decreased significantly (P49).
Therefore, the amount of carbon coating present is a result effective variable that can be optimized by routine experimentation to receive a person of ordinary skill in the artâs desired initial discharge capacity result. â[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.â See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al (US 20160036040 A1) in view of Lou et al (New Anode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Aluminum Niobate(AlNb11O29), as give in the 06/21/2022 IDS) in view of Wang et al (Enhanced Electrochemical Properties of Li3VO4 with Controlled Oxygen Vacancies as Li-Ion Battery Anode) as applied to claim 1, in view of Yamamoto et al (US 20070048611 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Takami does not meet the limitation wherein the active electrode material has a BET surface area in the range of 0.1-100 m2/g, or 0.5-50 m2/g, or 1-20 m2/g.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material is preferably 0.5 to 20 m2/g (P48). Yamamoto teaches if the specific surface area is less than 0.5 m2/g, the area of the negative electrode active material in contact with a non-aqueous electrolyte is small, so that the charge/discharge efficiency may decrease (P48). Yamamoto discloses if the specific surface area exceeds 20 m2/g, the reactivity between the negative electrode active material and the non-aqueous electrolyte becomes excessive, so that the irreversible capacity may increase (P48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Yamamoto and selected the active electrode material to have a surface area in the range of 0.5 to 20 m2/g (which lies within the claimed range), given Yamamoto teaches this prevents a decrease in charge/discharge efficiency and increase in irreversible capacity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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 examinerâs supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months
â
Custom AI strategy tailored to your specific industry needs
â
Step-by-step implementation with measurable ROI
â
5-minute setup that requires zero technical skills
Trusted by 1,000+ companies worldwide
