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
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 8/6/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not entirely persuasive. Claims 1, 3 and 5-20 are pending. This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, You, Y. et al., Insights into the Improved High-Voltage Performance of Li-Incorporated Layered Oxide Cathodes for Sodium-Ion Batteries, Chem., 4, pages 2124-2139.
You teaches a lithium incorporated layered oxide cathode for a sodium ion battery comprising a O3 type material of the formula Na0.85Li0.1Ni0.175Mn0.525Fe0.2O2 (NLNMF). See pages 2125, lines 9-11 and 16-28. See Figure 1A on page 2126 and Figure 3 on page 2129 that show XRD characterization of the O3 type material. See the section on page 2125 at lines 33-46 regarding at least claim 3 and 5-7. Figure 1B and Figure 1C. Regarding product by process claims 8-10, see the material synthesis section of You. Regarding claims 11-14, see Table S2 and Figures S1 and S7 of You.
You does not explicitly teach the O3 type sodium transition metal oxide compound disclosed has an I(003)/I(004) ratio of between 0.8 and 1.2 in an x-ray diffraction spectrum. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the O3 type sodium transition metal oxide compound disclosed by You and the O3-phase layered metal oxide recited by the claimed invention to have the same or similar I(003)/I(004) ratio of between 0.8 and 1.2 in an x-ray diffraction spectrum. Both You and the claimed invention teach/recite the O3-phase layered metal oxide is Na0.85Li0.1Ni0.175Mn0.525Fe0.2O2. In addition, product by process limitations in the claims have not been given patentable weight. MPEP 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/25 have been fully considered but they are not found entirely persuasive.
Regarding You, Applicant argues the reference fails to disclose or teach the positive electrode active material having a ratio of I(003)/I(104) in the range of 0.8-1.2, as recited by amended claim 1. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the O3 type sodium transition metal oxide compound disclosed by You and the O3-phase layered metal oxide recited by the claimed invention to have the same or similar I(003)/I(004) ratio of between 0.8 and 1.2 in an x-ray diffraction spectrum. Both You and the claimed invention teach/recite the O3-phase layered metal oxide is Na0.85Li0.1Ni0.175Mn0.525Fe0.2O2.
Applicant argues examples 5 and 9 of the present specification exhibit significantly higher electrical performance when compared with Examples 6-8 and 10 of the present specification. However, any evidence of unexpected results must distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of record. Applicant has not presented support or evidence that Examples 6-8 and 10 of the present specification are representative of You. You teaches Li-incorporated O3-type layered oxide cathode materials show a much enhanced high-voltage electrochemical performance.
You further teaches the NLNMF has a capacity retention of 88% after 100 cycles at 1C at 2.0-4.5V (page 2127; Figures 2A-C of You), which is significantly higher than the capacity retention of the examples (compare Table 1, last column, of present specification). You teaches the NLNMF has a capacity retention of 95% after 100 cycles at 1C at 2.0-4.2V (page 2128; Figures 2D-F of You) (compare Table 1, column 9, of present specification). No evidence of unexpected results has been provided distinguishing the electrical performance of the claimed invention over the electrical performance of the prior art of record. Examiner notes Example 6 teaches a I(003)/I(004) ratio of 0.79 (just outside the claimed range of 0.8 and 1.2).
Examiner further notes Figure S3 represents the NLNMF after the cathode has been cycled (page 2127). Applicant’s arguments regarding Figure 3A of You are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Furthermore, it is unclear how Applicant concludes You teaches a ratio I(003)/I(004) of the NLNMF must be lower than 0.8.
Applicant previously argued You is prepared by a different process but did not properly support the argument. Applicant made assertions regarding the teachings of You, but the assertions were not properly supported. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments were not commensurate in scope with at least claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite a sintering temperature or any other method limitations. In addition, even if found persuasive, Applicant’s argument the positive active material of You is prepared by a different method does not necessarily show You does not teach the ratio recited by at least claim 1. Applicant does not address the teachings of You cited by the Examiner. Examiner emphasizes that sintering temperature is not the only parameter that may determine the ratio recited by at least claim 1, as evidenced by Table 1 of present specification. Applicant has not presented any persuasive arguments and/or evidence the O3 type material of Na0.85Li0.1Ni0.175Mn0.525Fe0.2O2 of You, that reads upon claim 1, does not have the claimed I(003)/I(104) ratio. Examiner further notes all of Examples 5-10 of the present specification recite the exact formula of You (Na0.85Li0.1Ni0.175Mn0.525Fe0.2O2). Examiner notes only Ex5 and Ex9 have a I(003)/I(104) ratio within the presently claimed range.
Regarding Oh, Applicant argues the reference fails to disclose or teach the positive electrode active material having a ratio of I(003)/I(104) in the range of 0.8-1.2, as recited by amended claim 1. The rejection in view of Oh has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Oh does not teach or suggest at least claim 1, as amended.
Conclusion
Examiner notes NPL document 2 of the IDS filed 11/12/24 teaches “the ratio of (003)/(104) gradually decreases with the increase of cation mixing degree in ternary materials. Most studies believe that if the value of (003)/(104) is greater than 1.2, the cation mixing is the synthesized layered materials is small” (page 33).
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 TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on 571-272-1330. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727