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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9 & 14 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 14 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (“High Reversibility of Lattice Oxygen Redox Quantified by Direct Bulk Probes of Both Anionic and Cationic Redox Reactions”) in view of Vergnet (“The Structural Stability of P2-Layered Na-Based Electrodes during Anionic Redox”).
Regarding claims 1-6 & 8-11, Dai teaches a battery comprising a first current collector such as aluminum foil; a cathode disposed over at least a portion of the first current collector, a separator disposed over at least a portion of the cathode, and an anode disposed over at least a portion of the separator, wherein the cathode comprises a conductive agent, a binder and a cathode active material comprising a composition comprising a P2-type layered manganese oxide represented by Na2/3Mg1/3Mn2/3O-2 which reads on the claimed compositions (Abstract; Introduction; Electrochemical Tests). Dai is silent as to M being Zn, Al, LiAl or LiCr. Vergnet teaches a cathode active material for Na-ion batteries, wherein the cathode active material includes a P2-type layered manganese oxide represented by Na2/3Zn1/3Mn2/3O-2 showing similar characteristics to Na2/3Mg1/3Mn2/3O-2 (figs. 8-9; Pages 421-423 & 430). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to substitute Zn for Mg in Dai’s active material because the nature of the ionic metal, either Mg or Zn, does not impact the competition between Dp (i.e disproportionation of the oxygen network) and the RCM (i.e reductive coupling mechanism) as taught by Vergnet (Page 430). “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”, See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claims 14 & 16, Dai teaches a process for forming a manganese oxide, comprising introducing a sodium-containing precursor with a manganese-containing precursor and a magnesium-containing precursor under first conditions to form a mixture, and heating the mixture at an operating temperature of 900°C to form a composition represented by formula (II) where M is Mg and having a P2-type crystal structure (Result and Discussions; Experimental Procedures). While Dai does not explicitly teach a substantially O2/T2 type structure as determined by powder x-ray diffraction, it is noted that Dai discloses the claimed composition as well the claimed process for producing the claimed composition including teaching an operating temperature of 900°C which reads on the claimed range recited in claim 16. Accordingly, Dai’s manganese oxide would be expected to possess a substantially O2/T2-type structure. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (“High Reversibility of Lattice Oxygen Redox Quantified by Direct Bulk Probes of Both Anionic and Cationic Redox Reactions”) and Vergnet (“The Structural Stability of P2-Layered Na-Based Electrodes during Anionic Redox”), as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 14 & 16, and further in view of Chen (CN 103840149 A).
Regarding claim 7, Dai as modified by Vergnet teaches the cathode active material of claim 1 but is silent as to wherein the manganese oxide of formula (II) using LiAl as M2. Chen teaches a cathode active material comprising a sodium manganese oxide in which the manganese is partially substituted with A, where A can be one or more selected from Li, Mg, Cu, Zn, Al, V and Fe (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to include Li and Al as Dai’s M2 as suitable dopants for a sodium manganese oxide for cathode active materials as taught by Chen. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (“High Reversibility of Lattice Oxygen Redox Quantified by Direct Bulk Probes of Both Anionic and Cationic Redox Reactions”) and Vergnet (“The Structural Stability of P2-Layered Na-Based Electrodes during Anionic Redox”), as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 14 & 16, and further in view of Zhou (US 2023/0352675 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, Dai as modified by Vergnet teaches the battery of claim 9 as noted above but is silent as to an article comprising a device and the battery of claim 9 electrically coupled to the device. Zhou teaches the use of sodium ion batteries as a power source for an article such as an electric vehicle ([0057]-[0059]). While not expressly stated in Zhou, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the battery drives the motor of an electric vehicle such that the chemical energy in the battery is converted to rotational energy which allows the wheels of the vehicle to be driven.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen (“Studies of the layered manganese bronzes, Na2/3[Mn1−xMx]O2 with M=Co, Ni, Li, and Li2/3[Mn1−xMx]O2 prepared by ion-exchange”) in view of Vergnet (“The Structural Stability of P2-Layered Na-Based Electrodes during Anionic Redox”).
Regarding claims 14-20, Paulsen teaches a process for forming a manganese oxide, comprising introducing a sodium-containing precursor with a manganese-containing precursor and a metal-containing precursor (wherein the metal is Li) under first conditions to form a mixture, and heating the mixture at an operating temperature of 700°C or 900°C to form a composition represented by formula (II) (where M is Li) (Section 2.1); performing an ion exchange reaction by reacting the manganese oxide represented by formula (II) with a lithium-containing precursor such as lithium bromide at an operating temperature of 180°C or 280°C to form a composition comprising a manganese oxide represented by formula (I) (where b=0) (Section 2.2). Paulsen is silent as to M being Zn, Al, LiAl or LiCr. Vergnet teaches a cathode active material for Na-ion batteries, wherein the cathode active material includes a P2-type layered manganese oxide represented by Na2/3Zn1/3Mn2/3O-2 (figs. 8-9; Pages 421-423 & 430). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to substitute Zn for Mg in Dai’s active material as a suitable metal for substituting Mn in a P2-type layered manganese oxide for cathode active material of a Na-ion battery. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”, See MPEP 2144.07.
While Paulsen does not explicitly teach the crystal structures obtained after heating the mixture at 700°C and 900°C, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a P2 type structure and P3 type structure, respectively, to be obtained after heating since Paulsen as modified by Vergnet discloses substantially the same composition and method of producing the cathode active material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. The amendments to the claims have prompted new grounds of rejection in view of the teachings of Vergnet as presented in the above updated rejection.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-20 stands rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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 examiner’s supervisor, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights