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 Status
Claims 1-5 and 35-37 have been previously withdrawn
Claims 6-19 are now cancelled.
Claims 25, 27-34 were previously cancelled.
Claims 20 is amended.
Claims 38-42 are new.
Claims 20-24, 26, and 38-42 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 04/03/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 20-24, 26, 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeremy Barker et al. (US 20150194672 A) in view of Yang et al. (“A flexible and binder-free reduced graphene oxide/Na2/3[Ni1/3Mn2/3]O2 composite electrode for high-performance sodium ion batteries”. J. Mater. Chem. A 2014) in further view of Joshua Treacher et al. (US 20180269522 A1 - cited in IDS filed on 12/22/2021).
Regarding claim 20, Barker discloses an electrochemical cell ([0159] and [0225] regarding Na-ion cell) comprising: a negative electrode ([0002] regarding anode) configured to reversibly accept sodium ions from an electrolyte and to reversibly release sodium ions to the electrolyte ([0004], [0158]-[0159], [0225], [0229], [0232], [0234], [0237], [0239], [0243]-[0244], [0248], [0252], [0256], [0261], and [0264] regarding sodium ions), the negative electrode having at least one current collector ([0221] regarding current collector); a positive electrode ([0002] regarding cathode) comprising a, configured to reversibly accept sodium ions from the electrolyte and to reversibly release sodium ions to the electrolyte ([0004], [0158]-[0159], [0225], [0229], [0232], [0234], [0237], [0239], [0243]-[0244], [0248], [0252], [0256], [0261], & [0264] regarding sodium ions), the positive electrode comprising a conductive material and at least one current collector ([0220]), the conductive material comprising an active compound of with the formula NaNi0.5-xMn0.5-yZnxTiyO2 ([0065], [0139], and Example 12 of Table 1) wherein X is in the range 0≤X<0.5 ([0020], [0095]); Y is in the range 0≤Y<0.5 ([0021], [0096]); which overlaps with claimed compound of formula I: NaxNi0.5-yMn0.5-zZnyTizO2 (I), and an electronically conductive additive ([0220]). Barker teaches a cathode composition comprising active material, conductive carbon and PVdF binder ([0220]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Barker because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Barker does not teach wherein the conductive material is devoid of polymer binder.
However, Yang teaches a binder free composite electrode for sodium ion batteries (abstract), specifically a reduced graphene oxide/Na2/3[Ni1/3Mn2/3]O2 composite electrode free of PVDF (pp. 6723). Yang teaches that PVDF reduces the electrical conductivity of the electrode (pp. 6723). Yang teaches that the binder free electrode shows improved performance, and improved electrical conductivity over a normal electrode composed of Na2/3[Ni1/3Mn2/3]O2, super P, and PVDF (pp. 6724-6726)
Barker teaches doped nickelate active materials based on NaNi0.5Mn0.5O2 and NaNi0.5Ti0.5O2 ([0001]; [0004]; [0008]-[0023]) combined with conductive carbon and PVdF binder to form a cathode ([0220]). Yang teaches that PVDF binder decreases the electrical conductivity of a nickelate active material and teaches a cathode formed of Na2/3[Ni1/3Mn2/3]O2 and reduced graphene oxide that shows improved electrical conductivity, reduced resistance of electrode, and comparable ionic conductivity (pp. 6724-6726).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell of Barker by removing PVdF as taught by Yang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to remove PVdF to improve the electrical conductivity of the cathode.
Barker does not directly disclose a separator soaked with the electrolyte comprising sodium ions, in contact with both the negative and positive electrodes.
However, Treacher teaches a separator soaked with the electrolyte comprising sodium ions, in contact with both the negative and positive electrodes ([0003], [0056]-[0057], and [0074]-[0075] regarding porous separators and electrolyte).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrochemical cell of Barker with the electrochemical cell with a separator of Treacher, in order to electrically insulate the cell ([0074]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Barker further discloses the electrochemical cell according to claim 20, wherein the separator is selected from glass fiber, polyolefin separator and cellulose -based film ([0074] of Treacher regarding polyolefin-based porous separators).
Regarding claim 22, modified Barker further discloses the electrochemical cell according to claim 20, wherein the negative electrode comprises sodium metal, a carbonaceous compound, hard carbon, antimony, tin, phosphorous or a mixture thereof ([0218] regarding hard carbon anode).
Regarding claim 23, modified Barker further discloses the electrochemical cell according to claim 20, wherein the cell is a coin cell, a pouch cell, a cylindrical cell, or a prismatic cell ([0025], [0075], & [0079] of Treacher regarding pouch cell).
Regarding claims 24 and 26, modified Barker further discloses the electrochemical cell according to claim 20, but the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the specific energy of the cell is at least about 200 Wh-kg-1 when cycled at a voltage inferior to 4 V. As the electrochemically active material efficiency is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the charge capacity, discharge rate, specific energy, energy retention, cycling performance, and stability ([0005]-[0007]), with said electrochemically active material efficiency increases as the specific energy is increased, the specific energy would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed the specific energy cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the specific energy of Barker to obtain the desired balance between the electrochemically active material efficiency and battery performance, 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.
Regarding claim 38 and 41, Barker discloses a compound of formula IV: NaNi0.5-xMn0.5-yZnxTiyO2 ([0065], [0139], and Example 12 of Table 1) wherein X is in the range 0≤X<0.5 ([0020], [0095]): Y is in the range 0≤Y<0.5 ([0021], [0096]); which overlaps with claimed compound of formula II: NaNi0.45Zn0.05Mn0.4Ti0.1O2 (II), formula III: NaNi0.45Zn0.05Mn0.3Ti0.2O2 (III), formula IV: NaNi0.45ZN0.05Mn0.35Ti0.15O2 (IV).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Barker because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05. When x is selected as 0.05, and y is selected as 0.1, the composition taught by Barker is identical to that in formula (II).
Regarding claim 40, a conductive material for a positive electrode of a sodium-ion electrochemical cell (abstract), the conductive material comprising an active compound of formula NaNi0.5-xMn0.5-yZnxTiyO2 ([0065], [0139], and Example 12 of Table 1) wherein X is in the range 0≤X<0.5 ([0020], [0095]); Y is in the range 0≤Y<0.5 ([0021], [0096]); which overlaps with claimed compound of formula I: NaxNi0.5-yMn0.5-zZnyTizO2 (I), and an electronically conductive additive ([0220]). Barker teaches a cathode composition comprising active material, conductive carbon and PVdF binder ([0220]).
Regarding claim 39 and 42, modified Barker teaches the conductive material is devoid of polymer binder (see claim 20 rejection). Barker teaches an electrode film containing the following components, expressed in percent by weight: 80% active material, 8% Super P carbon, and 12% PVdF copolymer binder ([0220]).
Yang teaches replacing super P conductive material and PVDF binder with an equivalent weight percent of reduced graphene oxide (pp. 6724; “30 wt% RGO and 70 wt% Na2/3[Ni1/3Mn2/3]O2 materials” and “70% Na2/3[Ni1/3Mn2/3]O2, 15% Super P and 15% PVDF”).
Therefore, in view of Barker and Yang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the Super P and PVdF binder in the electrode taught by Barker with reduced graphene oxide as taught by Yang. The resulting electrode would comprise, for example, 80 wt% active material and 20 wt% reduced graphene oxide, overlapping with the claimed range. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al. teaches that binders are generally electrochemically inactive and insulating, which reduces the overall energy density and leads to poor cycling stability and teaches a variety of binder-free electrodes for sodium-ion batteries (abstract).
Liu et al. teaches a variety of layered transition metal oxides as cathode candidates for sodium-ion batteries (abstract).
Yuan et al. teaches a binder-free Na4Mn9O18/reduced graphene oxide (NMO-RGO) composite cathode for sodium-ion batteries (abstract).
Ni et al. teaches binder-less Na3V2(PO4)3/C cathode for sodium-ion batteries (abstract).
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights