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 Amendment
In Applicant’s response dated 3/16/2026, claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, and 14-20 are amended. Claim 13 is canceled. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcomes the Claim Objections and Claim Rejections over 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as provided in the Office Action dated 12/16/2025. Thus, those objections and rejections are withdrawn. The rejections as set forth within the recited Office Action have been modified as necessitated by Applicant amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tonosaki US20200112023A1 in view of Fukunaga et al. [US20160049694A1], hereinafter Fukunaga.
Regarding Claim 1, Tonosaki discloses a cathode material for a sodium ion battery [Tonosaki abstract, 0001-0006, and throughout], characterized in that the cathode material has a chemical formula consisting of Na1 + aNi 1-x-y-zMnxFeyAzO2+ I, where -0.40≤a≤0.25, 0.08<x<0.5, 0.05<y<0.5, 0.0<z<0.26, -0.3≤i≤0.3, and 1-x-y-z being not 0 and not negative [Tonosaki 0011-0012, formula 1, 0226-0227, Fig. 13, Tonosaki example 10 Na0.99Mg0.02Mn0.26Fe0.41Ni0.28Ti0.05O2 anticipates the claimed formula, where Mg and Ti are the claimed element A in the instant formula and further Tonosaki teaches NaxM1 r(FeyNizMnwM1−y−z−w)O2±δ where M represents any one or more elements selected from the group consisting of B, Si, V, Ti, Co, Mo, Pd, Re, Pb, and Bi, M1 represents any one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mg and Ca, and relations 0≤r≤0.1, 0.5≤x≤1.0, 0.1≤y≤0.5, 0<z<0.4, 0<w<0.4, 0≤δ≤0.05, and y+z+w≤1 are satisfied. Thus, Tonosaki’s ranges for the composition of Na, Fe, Ni, Mn and O overlap and obviate the claimed ranges, respectively, and Tonosaki’s ranges for M with M1 overlap and obviate the composition range for claimed element A. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ];
A is one or a combination of two or more selected from a group consisting of Ti, Zn, Co, Al, Zr, Y, Ca, Rb, Cs, W, Ce, Mo, Ba, Mg, Ta, Nb, V, Sc, Sr, B and Cu [Tonosaki 0226-0227 and throughout, formula 1, Tonosaki’s elements Ti and Mg as combined read on the claimed two or more claimed A elements and as combined instant z=0.07, which anticipates instant z. Further, Tonosaki’s M elements B, V, Ti, Co, Mo and M1 elements Ca and Mg as combined read on the claimed two or more claimed A elements and the composition of Tonosaki’s M and M1 element overlap the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists..];
wherein in the cathode material for the sodium ion battery, at least two diffraction peaks exist with a diffraction angle 2Θ in a range of 42° to 46° [Tonosaki Figs. 2-13 shows at least 2 peaks and thus meets the limitation], and
diffraction angle 2Θ values of the two diffraction peaks are around 43° and around 45° , respectively [Tonosaki Figs. 2-13, the two peaks to the right of the most intense peak are around 43° and around 45° and thus meet the limitation]. Tonosaki is silent to the claimed residual alkali.
Fukunaga discloses a positive electrode active material for sodium ion batteries [abstract 0001 and throughout] with a total content of residual alkali of less than 3.15% [Fukunaga 0010, 0019-0022, 0026, 0029-0030, abstract, 0104-0122 and throughout. Fukunaga discloses less than 500 ppm or less than 0.05%, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Fukunaga discloses multiple examples anticipating the claimed range [0104-0122]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Fukunaga’s teachings with Tonosaki’s sodium ion battery cathode material for the predictable result of a sodium ion battery with improved battery characteristics and reliability through suppression of side reactions [Fukunaga 0019-0022, 0026, 0029-0030, 0055 and throughout].
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Fukunaga’s teachings demonstrate that the residual alkali in the cathode material for a sodium ion battery is a result effective variable. If the content of residual alkali is too high, battery characteristics and reliability are affected. While a low residual alkali content would not be expected to be harmful to the battery characteristics and reliability, process cost may be affected by longer heating times or additional process steps such as particle size control to reduce the residual alkali [Fukunaga 0037-0041]. Determining the workable range of residual alkali merely requires routine experimentation by balancing the battery characteristics and reliability with the process cost as described, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Fukunaga’s teachings about the benefits of and methods for reducing residual alkali to Tonosaki’s cathode material for the predictable result of a sodium ion battery with improved battery characteristics and reliability through suppression of side reactions [Fukunaga 0019-0022, 0026, 0029-0030, 0055 and throughout].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1, characterized in that -0.40≤a≤0.20, 0.08<x<0.48, 0.05<y<0.45, 0.01<z<0.24, and i=0 [Tonosaki 0011-0012 and throughout, formula 1 as described for claim 1 above overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the A element contains a Ti element and an N element, wherein the content of the Ti element is represented by c, and the total content of the Ti element and the N element is z, 0<c<0.24, and i=0, and N is the combination of two or more selected from the group consisting of Zn, Co, Al, Zr, Y, Ca, Rb, Cs, W, Ce, Mo, Ba, Mg, Ta, Nb, V, Sc, Sr, B, and Cu [Tonosaki 0011-0012, formula 1 where M is Ti and M1 is Ca or Mg. In formula 1 where M is Ti and the claimed composition of Ti is overlapped. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Also, see Tonosaki example 10 Na0.99Mg0.02Mn0.26Fe0.41Ni0.28Ti0.05O, which anticipates the limitation.]
Regarding Claim 5, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 4, characterized in that-0.40 ≤a≤ 0.20, 0.08<x<0.48,0.05<y<0.45, 0.01<z<0.24 [Tonosaki 0011-0012, formula 1 where M is Ti and M1 is Ca or Mg. In formula 1 where M is Ti and the claimed compositions are overlapped. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Also, see Tonosaki example 10 Na0.99Mg0.02Mn0.26Fe0.41Ni0.28Ti0.05O, which anticipates the limitation.]
Regarding Claim 8, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1, characterized in that in an x-ray diffraction graph of a cathode material powder for the sodium ion battery, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of two diffraction peaks having diffraction angle 2Θ values in a range of 42° to 46° ranges from 0.06° to 0.3°; and/or
two diffraction peaks having diffraction angle 2Θ values in a range of 42° to 46° have interplanar spacings in a range of 1.5Å to 3.0Å [Tonosaki does not explicitly teach the claimed FWHM or interplanar spacing; however, Figs. 2-13 show x-ray diffraction graphs with cathode material powders for a sodium ion battery with narrow FWHMs for two diffraction peaks in the range of 42° to 46° that would be expected to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Tonosaki teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore Tonosaki’s structure will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely full width at half maximum (FWHM) of two diffraction peaks having diffraction angle 2Θ values in a range of 42° to 46° ranges from 0.06° to 0.3°; and/or two diffraction peaks having diffraction angle 2Θ values in a range of 42° to 46° have interplanar spacings in a range of 1.5Å to 3.0Å. See MPEP 2112.01 I.].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 8, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of at least one of the two diffraction peaks ranges from 0.06° to 0.25°; and/or the two diffraction peaks having the diffraction angle 2Θ values in a range of 42° to 46° have interplanar spacings in a range of 1.8Å to 2.8Å [Tonosaki does not explicitly teach the claimed FWHM or interplanar spacing; however, Figs. 2-13 show x-ray diffraction graphs with cathode material powders for a sodium ion battery with narrow FWHMs for two diffraction peaks in the range of 42° to 46° that would be expected to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Tonosaki teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore Tonosaki’s structure will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of at least one of the two diffraction peaks ranges from 0.06° to 0.25°; and/or the two diffraction peaks having the diffraction angle 2Θ values in a range of 42° to 46° have interplanar spacings in a range of 1.8Å to 2.8Å. See MPEP 2112.01 I.].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 9, characterized in that an x-ray diffraction graph of a cathode material powder for the sodium ion battery, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a diffraction peak of the two diffraction peaks has one or more selected from the following features:
the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 43° is in a range of 0.08° to 0.18°;
the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 45° is in a range of 0. 09° to 0.22°;
a ratio of an intensity of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 43° to an intensity of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 45° is in the range of 0.1 to 12.0
[Tonosaki does not explicitly teach the claimed FWHM or ratio; however, Figs. 2-13 show x-ray diffraction graphs with cathode material powders for a sodium ion battery with narrow FWHMs for two diffraction peaks in the range of 42° to 46° that would be expected to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Further, the ratios of intensity of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 43° to an intensity of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 45° appears to overlap or be merely close to the range of 0.1 to 12.0. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Tonosaki teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore Tonosaki’s structure will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 43° is in a range of 0.08° to 0.18°; the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 45° is in a range of 0. 09° to 0.22°; a ratio of an intensity of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 43° to an intensity of the diffraction peak around the diffraction angle 2Θ of 45° is in the range of 0.1 to 12.0. See MPEP 2112.01 I.].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 10, characterized in that, in an x-ray diffraction graph of a cathode material powder for the sodium ion battery, three to five diffraction peaks exist when the diffraction angle 2Θ is in a range of 30° to 40° [Tonosaki Figs. 2-13]; and the diffraction angle 2Θ values thereof are around 32 °, around 33 °, around 34 °, around 35 °, and around 37 °, respectively [Tonosaki Figs. 2-13 show 3-4 peaks as claimed].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1, characterized in that a mass percentage content of an Mn element in the cathode material for the sodium ion battery is in a range of 3% to 28% [Tonosaki 0011-0012 and throughout, formula 1 overlaps and obviates the claimed range, 0226-0227, Example 10, Table 1 anticipates the claimed range];
a mass percentage content of an Fe element is in a range of 3% to 28% [Tonosaki 0011-0012 and throughout, formula 1 overlaps and obviates the claimed range.];
a mass percentage content of an Ni element is in a range of 3% to 27% [Tonosaki 0011-0012 and throughout, formula 1 overlaps and obviates the claimed range]. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or is “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1. The claim limitation “which is prepared by a preparation method of the cathode material for the sodium ion battery , characterized by comprising steps of mixing an Na source, an Ni source, an Mn source, an Fe source and an A source in a certain proportion, sintering, cooling and pulverizing the mixture to obtain the cathode material for the sodium ion battery; wherein, the mixing adopts a solid phase mixing method or a liquid phase mixing method” is considered a product by process limitation per MPEP 2113 I. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Therefore, the limitations for claim 17 are met. Further, Tonosaki discloses a preparation method [Tonosaki 0077-0137] characterized by comprising steps of mixing an Na source, an Ni source, an Mn source, an Fe source and an A source in a certain proportion [Tonosaki 0077-0107], sintering [Tonosaki 0123-0137], cooling [Tonosaki 0205-0227 examples teach cooling] and pulverizing the mixture to obtain the cathode material for the sodium ion battery [Tonosaki 0137]; wherein, the mixing adopts a solid phase mixing method or a liquid phase mixing method [Tonosaki 0120, Tonosaki teaches both wet and dry mixing].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1. The claim limitation “wherein sintering is divided into two steps: in a first step, a material is pretreated at a sintering temperature in a range of 450°C to 650°C; in a second step, a sintered material is sintered a temperature in a range of 850°C to 950°C” is considered a product by process limitation per MPEP 2113 I. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Therefore, the limitations for claim 18 are met. Further, Tonosaki discloses two sintering steps sintering a first step at 500 ° C to 800 ° C and a second step at 750 ° C to 1000 ° C [Tonosaki 0125-0128], both of which overlap and obviate the claimed ranges Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Tonosaki discloses a positive electrode [Tonosaki 0016 and throughout] for the sodium ion battery, characterized by comprising at least one of the cathode material according to claim 1 as a positive electrode active substance [Tonosaki 0016 and throughout].
Regarding Claim 20, modified Tonosaki discloses the sodium ion battery, characterized in that the sodium ion battery comprises the positive electrode for the sodium ion battery according to claim 19 [Tonosaki 0016 and throughout], a negative electrode [Tonosaki 0155-0160 and throughout], and an electrolyte containing a sodium salt [Tonosaki 0162 and throughout].
Claim(s) 3, 6-7, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonosaki in view of Fukunaga, as provided in claim 1 above, in further view of Zhu et al. [US20220037660A1], hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1 but is silent to the A element containing a Zn element.
Zhu discloses a cathode material for a sodium ion battery [Zhu abstract and throughout] characterized in that the A element contains a Zn element, wherein the content of the Zn element is represented by b , 0<b≤0.10 [Zhu 0005 and throughout, LxNayMzCuαFeβMnγO2+δ−0.5ηXη, wherein, L is a doping element at alkali metal site, and selected from one or more of Li+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+ and Zn2+ and x is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 0.35, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.] and an M element [Zhu 0005, Zhu teaches M can be Li+, Ni2+, Mg2+, Mn2+, Zn2+, Ca2+, , Ba2+, Sr2+, Mn3+, Al3+, B3+, Cr3+, V3+, Zr4+, Ti4+, Sn4+, V4+, Mo4+, Mo5+, Ru4+, Nb5+, Si4+, Nb6+, Mo6+ and Te6+; Tonosaki 0011-0012, Tonosaki teaches B, V, Ti, Co, Mo. ]. Tonosaki and Zhu are considered analogous art since both teach sodium ion cathode materials. From Zhu’s teachings it would be expected that Zn can be substituted as an art recognized dopant element in modified Tonosaki’s cathode material in place of Tonosaki’s taught elements Mg and Ca (see claim 1) per MPEP 2144.06. As described in claim 1 above, such substitution can be made where the total content of the Zn element and the M element is z, 0<b≤0.10, and i=0, and M is one or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of B, V, Ti, Co, Mo (see claim 1). The overlap of the formulas, claimed elements, and compositional ranges taught by Tonosaki and Zhu obviates the limitations of claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Zhu’s teaching of Zn as an art recognized dopant for a sodium ion battery cathode material with Tonosaki’s cathode material for a cathode material suitable for a sodium ion battery [Zhu throughout; Tonosaki throughout].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1, characterized in that the A element contains a Ti element, an X element, the content of the Ti element is represented by c, and 0<c<0.24, and i=0, and X is one or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of two or more of Co, Al, Zr, Y, Ca, Rb, Cs, W, Ce, Mo, Ba, Mg, Ta, Nb, V, Sc, Sr, B, and Cu [Tonosaki 0011-0012 and throughout, Tonosaki teaches M can be Ti and B, V, Ti, Co, Mo, which overlaps with the claimed X elements. Further Tonosaki teaches the composition of M is 1−y−z−w, which overlaps and obviate the claimed range of Ti is greater than 0 and less than 0.24. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Tonosaki is silent to a Zn element is represented by b and 0<b≤0.10 and thus does not teach the total content of the Ti element, the Zn element and the X element is z. Zhu discloses a cathode material for a sodium ion battery [Zhu abstract and throughout] characterized in that the A element contains a Zn element, wherein the content of the Zn element is represented by b , 0<b≤0.10 [Zhu 0005 and throughout, LxNayMzCuαFeβMnγO2+δ−0.5ηXη, wherein, L is a doping element at alkali metal site, and selected from one or more of Li+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+ and Zn2+ and x is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 0.35, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.] and an M element [Zhu 0005, Zhu teaches M can be Li+, Ni2+, Mg2+, Mn2+, Zn2+, Ca2+, , Ba2+, Sr2+, Mn3+, Al3+, B3+, Cr3+, V3+, Zr4+, Ti4+, Sn4+, V4+, Mo4+, Mo5+, Ru4+, Nb5+, Si4+, Nb6+, Mo6+ and Te6+; Tonosaki 0011-0012, Tonosaki teaches B, V, Ti, Co, Mo. ]. Tonosaki and Zhu are considered analogous art since both teach sodium ion cathode materials. From Zhu’s teachings it would be expected that Zn can be substituted as an art recognized dopant element in modified Tonosaki’s cathode material in place of Tonosaki’s taught elements Mg and Ca (see claim 1) per MPEP 2144.06. As described in claim 1 above, such substitution can be made where the total content of the Ti element, the Zn element, and the X element is z, 0<b≤0.10, and i=0, and X is one or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of B, V, Co, Mo (see claim 1). The overlap of the formulas, claimed elements, and compositional ranges taught by Tonosaki and Zhu obviates the limitations of claim 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Zhu’s teaching of Zn as an art recognized dopant for a sodium ion battery cathode material with Tonosaki’s cathode material for a cathode material suitable for a sodium ion battery [Zhu throughout; Tonosaki throughout].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 6, characterized in that -0.40 ≤a≤ 0.20, 0.08<x<0.48, 0.05<y<0.45, 0.01<z<0.24 [Tonosaki 0011-0012 and throughout, formula 1 where M is Ti and one or more of the X elements B, V, Co, Mo as described in claim 6 above. M1 is Zn as combined with Zhu as described in claim 6 above and z is the sum of the compositions of the Ti element, the X element, and the Zn element. With such substitution, modified Tonosaki further modified by Zhu overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges of a, x, y, and z. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1 but does not disclose a specific surface area value. Zhu discloses a cathode material for a sodium ion battery [Zhu abstract and throughout] where the specific surface area of the cathode material is 0.5 m2/g to 7 m2/g[ Zhu 0047-0049], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of 0.2 m2/g to 1.3 m2/g. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Zhu further provides an example where the specific surface area is 1.0 m2/g [Zhu 0126], which anticipates the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Zhu’s teachings about specific surface area for a cathode material for a sodium ion battery in Tonosaki’s cathode material for a sodium ion battery with the predictable result of a cathode material for a sodium ion battery with improved performance [Zhu 0047].
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Zhu’s teachings demonstrate that the specific surface area is a result effective variable where maintaining the specific surface area in the appropriate range affects the liquid adsorption during the preparation of the cathode material slurry and the particle dispersion uniformity, which thereby affects the compacted density, energy density, and performance [Zhu 0047]. With Zhu’s teachings, determining the workable range of specific surface area merely requires routine experimentation, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Zhu’s teachings about specific surface area for a cathode material for a sodium ion battery in Tonosaki’s cathode material for a sodium ion battery with the predictable result of a cathode material for a sodium ion battery with acceptable battery performance and energy density [Zhu 0047].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1 but does not disclose tap density. Zhu discloses a cathode material for a sodium ion battery [Zhu abstract and throughout] where the tap density is in a range of 1.0 g/cm3 to 2.9 g/cm3 [Zhu 0050-0051, 0126, Zhu discloses 1.5 g/cm3 to 3.0 g/cm3, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Zhu provides an example with a tap density of 2.0 g/cm3 which anticipates the claimed range.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Zhu’s teachings about tap density for a cathode material for a sodium ion battery in Tonosaki’s cathode material for a sodium ion battery with the predictable result of a cathode material for a sodium ion battery with higher capacity performance and energy density [Zhu 0050-0051].
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Zhu’s teaching demonstrate that tap density is a result effective variable. If the tap density is too low, the battery capacity and energy density will be affected [Zhu 0050-0051]. There will be some level at which increasing the tap density will not effectively improve the battery capacity and energy density. Determining the workable range of tap density merely requires routine experimentation balancing the required energy density and battery capacity, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II, routine optimization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Zhu’s teachings about tap density for a cathode material for a sodium ion battery in Tonosaki’s cathode material for a sodium ion battery with the predictable result of a cathode material for a sodium ion battery with higher capacity performance and energy density [Zhu 0050-0051].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonosaki in view of Fukunaga, as provided in claim 1 above, in further view of Sun et al. [US20170187039A1], hereinafter Sun.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Tonosaki discloses the cathode material for the sodium ion battery according to claim 1 but is silent to a particle size. Sun teaches a cathode material for the sodium ion battery has a particle size of 5 µm to 15 µm [Sun 0013], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of 2 µm to 18 µm. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sun’s cathode material particle size range with modified Tonosaki’s cathode material for a sodium ion battery with the expectation of a cathode material for a sodium ion battery with good battery characteristics [Sun 0009-0011, 0013, abstract, and throughout].
Further, for purpose of compact prosecution, Sun teaches that the particle size is a result effective variable, where if the particle size is too small, the specific surface area increases thereby requiring additional binder for the cathode active material [Sun 0013]. If the particle size is too large, the specific surface area decreases, which may degrade the battery characteristics [Sun 0013]. Determining the workable range of particle size requires balancing the specific required battery characteristics and merely requires routine optimization in view of Tonosaki’s teaching, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sun’s teaching to modified Tonosaki’s battery for the predictable result of a cathode material for a sodium ion battery with a particle size that supports good battery characteristics [Sun 0009-0011, 0013, abstract, and throughout].
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicants arguments on pg. 7 regarding the indefiniteness rejections of claims 3, 4, and 6 reciting “a combination”, the Examiner finds the Applicants arguments persuasive and the indefiniteness rejections provided for claims 3, 4, and 6 in the Office Action dated 12/16/2026 are withdrawn. Further, Applicants amendments are persuasive in overcoming the other indefiniteness rejections as well as the claim objections as provided in the recited Office Action. Thus, the previous indefiniteness rejections and claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights