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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending;
Claims 6, 11, and 19-20 are currently withdrawn;
Claim 21 is new;
Claims 1, 7, 12, and 17-18 are currently amended.
Status of Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 08/11/2025
The 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-18 have been replaced by new 102(a)(1) rejections and 103 rejections in view of Wu and in view of Wu in view of Zhamu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to the reference of Zhamu teaching the claimed lithium salt to sodium salt ratio in the electrolyte. Applicant argues that Zhamu does not identify the lithium dominant sub-range of 70:30 to 99:1 as critical and does not tie the range to a mixed positive electrode. In regards to criticality, 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). The burden is on the Applicant to establish that results are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In regards to Zhamu not tying the range to a mixed cathode material, Zhamu is not relied upon to teach a mixed cathode material. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 includes the limitation “Prussian white, Prussian Blue sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium iron phosphate…” in lines 3-4 that should be corrected to “Prussian White, Prussian Blue, sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide,
Claim 9 include the limitation “Prussian White, Prussian Blue sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium iron phosphate…” in lines 2-4 that should be corrected to “Prussian White, Prussian Blue, sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide,
Claim 16 includes the limitation “Prussian Blue sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium iron phosphate…” in lines 2-4 that should be corrected to “Prussian Blue, sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide, .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 –
(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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN-114583136-A), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a mixed positive electrode material for a battery, the mixed positive electrode material comprising: a primary positive electrode material ([0008]) that includes nickel in an amount from about 30 weight percent to about 99 weight percent of the total weight of the primary positive electrode material ([0012] nickel-cobalt manganese ternary cathode material such as 442, 532, etc., which would have an amount of nickel greater than 30 weight percent), the primary positive electrode material has a structure that allowed intercalation and de- intercalation of lithium ions while remaining electrochemically active in the presence of sodium ions ([0005]; [0008] lithium ion cathode material used in a mixed sodium/lithium ion cell would inherently have such a structure); and a secondary positive electrode material having a structure that allows intercalation and deintercalation of sodium ions in coordination with the intercalation and de-intercalation of lithium ions in the primary positive electrode material ([0008]; [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu also teaches wherein the primary positive electrode material includes nickel in an amount from about 35 weight percent to about 75 weight percent of the total weight of the primary positive electrode material ([0012] nickel-cobalt manganese ternary cathode material such as 442, 532, etc., which would have an amount of nickel greater than 35 weight percent).
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu also teaches wherein the primary positive electrode material includes a component selected from the group consisting of nickel cobalt manganese ternary material (NCM), nickel cobalt aluminum ternary material (NCA), nickel cobalt manganese aluminum quaternary material (NCMA), and combinations thereof ([0012] nickel-cobalt manganese ternary material).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu also teaches wherein the secondary positive electrode material includes a component selected from the group consisting of Prussian white, Prussian Blue sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium iron phosphate, sodium manganese phosphate, sodium chromium oxide, sodium cobalt phosphate, sodium nickel phosphate, and combinations thereof ([0013]; [0064] Prussian blue materials; transition metal oxide NaMeO2).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches a positive electrode for a battery comprising; a current collector; and an electrochemically active layer disposed over the current collector, the electrochemically active layer comprising a mixed positive electrode material for a battery, the mixed positive electrode material comprising: a primary positive electrode material that includes nickel in an amount from about 30 weight percent to about 99 weight percent of the total weight of the primary positive electrode material ([0012] nickel-cobalt manganese ternary cathode material such as 442, 532, etc., which would have an amount of nickel greater than 30 weight percent), the primary positive electrode material has a structure that allowed intercalation and de-intercalation of lithium ions in an electrolyte comprising both lithium and sodium ions (electrolyte includes both sodium and lithium salts [0054]); and a secondary positive electrode material having a structure that allows intercalation and deintercalation of sodium ions ([0028]; [0007]; [0013]), wherein the primary positive electrode material and secondary positive electrode material are configured to concurrently store and release lithium and sodium ions during charge and discharge cycles to enhance energy density and cycling stability (sodium/lithium ion battery [0007] that includes both sodium and lithium ions in the cathode [0013] and the electrolyte [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Wu also teaches wherein the primary positive electrode material includes a component selected from the group consisting of nickel cobalt manganese ternary material(NCM), nickel cobalt aluminum ternary material (NCA), nickel cobalt manganese aluminum quaternary material (NCMA), and combinations thereof ([0012] nickel-cobalt manganese ternary material).
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Wu also teaches where the secondary positive electrode material includes a component selected from the group consisting of Prussian White, Prussian Blue sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium iron phosphate, sodium manganese phosphate, sodium chromium oxide, sodium cobalt phosphate, sodium nickel phosphate, and combinations thereof ([0013]; [0064] Prussian blue materials; transition metal oxide NaMeO2; it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the transition metal oxide could be a sodium manganese oxide).
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 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above.
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wu fails to disclose wherein a weight ratio of the primary positive electrode material to the secondary positive electrode material is from 1:1 to 99:1. Wu does disclose that the volume ratio of the lithium-ion battery cathode material to the sodium-ion battery cathode material is in the range of 95:5 to 5:95 ([0014]). It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that, given such broad volume ratios, that the weight ratio of the primary positive electrode material to the secondary positive electrode material would overlap the claimed range of 1:1 to 99:1. 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).
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Wu fails to disclose wherein a weight ratio of the primary positive electrode material to the secondary positive electrode material is from 1:1 to 99:1 such that the positive electrode is a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery. Wu does disclose that the volume ratio of the lithium-ion battery cathode material to the sodium-ion battery cathode material is in the range of 95:5 to 5:95 ([0014]). It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that, given such broad volume ratios, that the weight ratio of the primary positive electrode material to the secondary positive electrode material would overlap the claimed range of 1:1 to 99:1. 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).
Claims 12-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Zhamu et al. (US-20180166759-A1), hereinafter Zhamu.
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches a rechargeable battery comprising at least one lithium-ion battery cell ([0019] lithium/sodium-ion battery), each lithium-ion battery cell including: a positive electrode comprising: a current collector ([0036]); and an electrochemically active layer disposed over the current collector ([0036]), the electrochemically active layer comprising a mixed positive electrode material for a battery ([0036]), the mixed positive electrode material comprising: a primary positive electrode material that includes nickel in an amount from about 30 weight percent to about 99 weight percent of the total weight of the primary positive electrode material ([0012] nickel-cobalt manganese ternary cathode material such as 442, 532, etc., which would have an amount of nickel greater than 30 weight percent) and a secondary positive electrode material having a structure that allows intercalation and deintercalation of sodium ions ([0036]sodium ion positive electrode material), such that both lithium and sodium ions participate concurrently in charging and discharging of the battery cell (given the lithium ion and sodium ion mixed cathode material, the material and cell would inherently cycle both lithium and sodium ions);
a negative electrode including a negative active material ([0053]);
and an electrolyte contacting the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0010] injected with electrolyte), the electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0023] different carbonate solvents), a lithium salt ([0021]; [0055]), and a sodium salt ([0021]-[0022]), wherein the primary positive electrode material has a structure that allowed intercalation and de-intercalation of lithium ions while maintaining electrochemical compatibility with sodium ions in the electrolyte and the mixed positive electrode material and the electrolyte are configured to provide cooperative lithium-ion and sodium-ion conduction during operation (the mixed positive electrode material of a NMC material and a sodium cathode material such as Prussian Blue or sodium transition metal oxide would inherently achieve this).
Wu fails to disclose a weight ratio of the lithium salt to the sodium salt from about 70:30 to about 99:1.
Zhamu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rechargeable batteries with hybrid/mixed ion electrolytes (Zhamu [0025]). Zhamu teaches that a weight ratio of a lithium salt to a sodium salt in the electrolyte is from about 70:30 to 99:1 ([0033] a weight ratio between the lithium salt and sodium salt is from 1/99 to 99/1). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wu to incorporate the weight ratio of a lithium salt to a sodium salt in the electrolyte of Zhamu. Doing so increases the lithium-ion conductivity of the electrolyte (Zhamu [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Wu also teaches wherein the at least one lithium-ion battery cell is a plurality of battery cells ([0010] battery cells).
Regarding claim 14, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Wu also teaches wherein each battery cell further includes a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0012] separator layer).
Regarding claim 15, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Wu also teaches wherein the primary positive electrode material includes a component selected from the group consisting of nickel cobalt manganese ternary material (NCM), nickel cobalt aluminum ternary material(NCA), nickel cobalt manganese aluminum quaternary material (NCMA), and combinations thereof ([0012] nickel-cobalt manganese ternary material).
Regarding claim 16, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Wu also teaches where the secondary positive electrode material includes a component selected from the group consisting of Prussian Blue sodium cobalt oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium manganese oxide, sodium iron phosphate, sodium manganese phosphate, sodium chromium oxide, sodium cobalt phosphate, sodium nickel phosphate, and combinations thereof ([0013]; [0064] Prussian blue materials; transition metal oxide NaMeO2).
Regarding claim 17, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Wu also teaches the rechargeable battery configured to operate primarily as a lithium-ion battery while incorporating sodium ions that participate in electrochemical cycling (given that the electrolyte is called a lithium-ion electrolyte in [0054] and the separator is called a lithium-ion battery separator in [0054], combined with the teaching that the combination of lithium ion and sodium ion cathode materials improves the performance of lithium-ion batteries, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the battery of Wu is configured to operate primarily as a lithium ion battery while continuing to insert and extract sodium ions ([0048] sodium ion insertion/extraction).
Regarding claim 18, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 17. Modified Wu also teaches a weight ratio of a lithium salt to a sodium salt in the electrolyte is from about 5:1 to 99:1 ([0033] a weight ratio between the lithium salt and sodium salt is from 1/99 to 99/1). 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).
Wu fails to disclose wherein a weight ratio of the primary positive electrode material to the secondary positive electrode material is from 1:1 to 99:1. Wu does disclose that the volume ratio of the lithium-ion battery cathode material to the sodium-ion battery cathode material is in the range of 95:5 to 5:95 ([0014]). It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that, given such broad volume ratios, that the weight ratio of the primary positive electrode material to the secondary positive electrode material would overlap the claimed range of 1:1 to 99:1. 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)
Regarding claim 21, Wu teaches all of the limitations of claim 14. Wu also teaches wherein the separator includes the electrolyte ([0062] the battery is injected with the electrolyte, therefore the electrolyte would be within the separator) thereby allowing lithium ions and sodium ions to move between the negative and positive electrodes.
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722