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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13, & 15-20 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1-20 were rejected in the 3/4/2026 office action. Applicant cancelled claims 3, 5-6, 12, & 14.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Examiner agrees with Applicant that all references on the 12/16/2025 information disclosure statement have been submitted. With this office action, Examiner signed off again on the 12/16/2025 information disclosure statement, but this time without any strike-through lines.
The 6/3/2026 amendment, in response to the 3/4/2026 office action, has been entered.
Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections; however, Applicant’s claim amendments introduced new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on the chemical taught by US20240088376A1 (Liang) in paragraphs 125-126; however, the claims remain rejected based on another chemical taught by Liang in the abstract, and also based on additional prior art.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not address cycle retention at high temperature or high-temperature cycling degradation. The claims don’t require cycle retention at high temperature or high-temperature cycling degradation, so it is unclear how these arguments are helpful at overcoming the rejection.
Applicant argues that Liang teaches away from a “body-phase doping element M selected from main-group elements {B, F, Al, P, Ca) having no 3d or 4d orbital electrons”. Element M is optional because its stoichiometric coefficient z can be zero (0≤z<0.26 in claim 1, chemical formula 1). Thus, it is not required that Liang teaches element M, and it is irrelevant whether or not Liang teaches away from this optional element.
Applicant argues that each specific prior art didn’t teach all claim limitations. In a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, multiple prior art references can combine to teach the claim limitations. There is no requirement that every reference teach every claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13, & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey, to one skilled in the relevant art, that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 now states “1-x-y-z-c>0”. Applicant states that support for this claim amendment is found in the specification examples. Examiner disagrees. Example chemical formulas, each with stoichiometric coefficients that provide a single value for equation, are insufficient to show that the entire range of this equation is presented in the specification.
Amended claim 1 now states “M and N are not the same”. Examiner could not find this claim amendment in the specification.
Amended claim 1 now states “M is a body phase doping element” and “N is a surface cladding element”. Examiner could not find these claim amendments in the specification.
Claims 2, 4, 7-11, 13, & 15-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13, & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 1 states “M is a body phase doping element” and “N is a surface cladding element”. The meaning of these phrases is unclear. Examiner couldn’t find any definition or explanation for these phrases in the specification.
Claims 2, 4, 7-11, 13, & 15-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 13, & 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240088376A1 (Liang) in view of US20210331938A1 (Fold), and US20190020020A1 (Zhou).
With regard to claim 1, Liang teaches the following claim limitations:
A… cathode material (paragraph 86: positive electrode active material = layered oxide) for sodium-ion battery characterized in that the… cathode material for sodium-ion battery comprises a composition shown in chemical formula 1,
wherein the chemical formula 1 is: Na1+aNi1-x-y-z-cMnxFeyMzNcO2, wherein -0.40≤a≤0.25, 0.08≤x≤0.5, 0.05≤y≤0.5, 0≤z<0.26, 0<c<0.1, 1-x-y-z-c>0… wherein M and N is each one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of B, F, Al, P, and Ca elements, wherein M and N are not the same
Chemical formula 1 can be NaNi0.35Mn0.25Fe0.35Al0.05O2 with a=0, x=0.25, y=0.35, z=0, N=Al and c=0.05, and 1-x-y-z-c = 1-0.25-0.35-0-0.05 = 0.35.
Liang teaches an oxide for a positive electrode with this formula: NaxMnyAaQbCcO2 (Abstract). This formula can be NaNi0.35Mn0.25Fe0.35Al0.05O2 with x=1, A=Ni with a=0.35 and A=Fe with a=0.35, y=0.2 and Q=Mn with b=0.05, and C=Al with c=0.05.
Not all of Liang’s chemical elements and stoichiometric coefficient values, allowed within Liang’s chemical formula, match claim 1 Chemical formula 1. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“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)”
Given that Liang’s ranges are similar to and substantially overlap the claimed ranges, Chemical formula 1 in claim 5 is an obvious variant of Liang’s chemical formula.
Claim 1 also states:
M is a body phase doping element
The element M is optional because its stoichiometric coefficient can be zero. Liang doesn’t teach the optional element M, so Liang doesn’t have to teach that this optional element is a body phase doping element.
Also, this limitation was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. It is not possible to analyze this limitation until the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is resolved; therefore, this claim limitation is disregarded for prior art analysis.
Claim 1 also states:
N is a surface cladding element
This limitation was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. It is not possible to analyze this limitation until the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is resolved; therefore, this claim limitation is disregarded for prior art analysis.
Claim 1 also states that the cathode material is mono-crystalline. Liang doesn’t explicitly state that the positive electrode active material / layered oxide is mono-crystalline.
Fold is directed to sodium metal oxide material for a secondary battery electrode with improved electrochemical stability (paragraph 4). Fold’s sodium metal oxide material are called primary particles, which Fold states are single crystals (paragraph 13; claim 1).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Liang’s layered oxide to be single crystals, as taught by Fold, as part of a secondary battery electrode with improved electrochemical stability.
Claim 1 also states:
a powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the mono-crystalline cathode material exhibits a (110) diffraction peak at a diffraction angle 2θ of about 64.9°, and the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the (110) diffraction peak is from 0.08 to 0.35
Modified Liang teaches the cathode material, as discussed above; therefore, presumably it has the claimed diffraction angle and diffraction peak.
Zhou provides additional guidance. Zhou is directed to a cathode material for achieving battery “high specific capacity, high temperature stability, excellent safety and cycling performance at high temperature” (abstract). Zhou’s cathode material can have a powder X-ray diffraction spectrum full width at half maximum FWHM(110) diffraction peak, at a diffraction angle 2θ of 64.9°, that is 0.07 to 0.13.
Zhou’s 0.07 to 0.13 range overlaps the claimed 0.08 to 0.35 range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“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)”
Given that Zhou’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claim 1 is an obvious variant of Zhou’s range.
Claim 1 also states:
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a moisture mass content of less than 1500 ppm
Liang fails to quantify moisture mass content. Liang, however, teaches oven drying the positive electrode slurry (paragraph 92). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to achieve < 1500 ppm moisture mass content through oven drying.
With regard to claim 2, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Liang also teaches the following limitations of claims 2-9 (see discussion under claim 1 above & Liang paragraphs 125-126):
-0.40≤a≤0, 0.15≤x≤0.5, 0.15≤y≤0.5
As discussed under claim 1, Chemical formula 1 can be NaNi0.35Mn0.25Fe0.35Al0.05O2 with a=0, x=0.25, and y=0.35. Liang teaches this chemical formula, as discussed under claim 1.
With regard to claim 4, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 4 states:
M is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Al, B, and Ca
Element M is optional because its stoichiometric coefficient can be zero. Liang doesn’t teach optional element M, so Liang doesn’t have to teach that this optional element is Al, B, and/or Ca.
With regard to claims 7-8, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Liang also teaches the following limitations of claims 7-8:
Claim 7
N is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Al, B, F, and P (Liang teaches N=Al, as discussed under claim 1)
Claim 8
N is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Al and B (Liang teaches N=Al, as discussed under claim 1)
With regard to claim 9, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 9 states:
0<c<0.05
Claim 1, chemical formula 1 (Na1+aNi1-x-y-z-cMnxFeyMzNcO2) can be NaNi0.35Mn0.26Fe0.35Al0.04O2 with a=0, x=0.26, y=0.35, z=0, N=Al and c=0.04, and 1-x-y-z-c = 1-0.26-0.35-0-0.04 = 0.35.
Liang’s oxide can also be NaNi0.35Mn0.26Fe0.35Al0.04O2 with x=1, A=Ni with a=0.35 and A=Fe with a=0.35, y=0.2 and Q=Mn with b=0.06, and C=Al with c=0.04.
With regard to claim 10, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 10 states:
in that a microscopic morphology of the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery under a scanning electron microscope is a mono crystal morphology
This is an apparatus claim – not a method of measurement claim. The method of determining that the cathode material is mono crystal doesn’t limit the claim for examination. As discussed under claim 1, modified Liang’s layered oxide is mono-crystalline.
With regard to claim 11, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 10 as discussed above. Liang also teaches the following limitation of claim 11:
particles of the mono crystal morphology is one or a combination of two or more selected from the group consisting of spherical, spheroidal, polygonal or lamellar in shape (figures 4-5 illustrate polygonal)
With regard to claim 13, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 13 states:
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a powder compacted density of 2.8-4.2 g/cm3, wherein the powder compacted density is measured by using a circular mold having a radius of 1.0 cm and applying a load corresponding to a mass of 7000-9000 kg
The pressure of claim 1 is the following:
9.8
m
s
2
*
7000
k
g
0.01
2
m
2
*
M
P
a
10
6
=
686
M
P
a
9.8
m
s
2
*
9000
k
g
0.01
2
m
2
*
M
P
a
10
6
=
882
M
P
a
Liang teaches 3.0-4.0 g/cm3 powder compaction density under 300 MPa pressure (paragraph 20). Liang’s density falls within the claimed range; however, Liang’s density is measured under a different pressure than the claimed pressure. Liang’s pressure is 300 MPa whereas claim 13 pressure is 686-882 MPa. MPEP 2144.05 (I) provides the law for this issue:
“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)… ‘The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.’”
Given that Liang’s 300 MPa is similar to 686-882 MPa in claim 13, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Liang’s pressure.
With regard to claim 15, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 15 states:
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a moisture mass content of less than 1000 ppm
Liang fails to quantify moisture mass content. Liang, however, teaches oven drying the positive electrode slurry (paragraph 92). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to achieve < 1000 ppm moisture mass content through oven drying.
With regard to claims 16-18, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Liang also teaches the following limitations of claims 16-18:
Claim 16
a pH of the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery is equal to or below 12.6 (paragraph 191, Table 1, Example 1: pH=12.53)
Claim 17
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a specific surface area of 0.35-1.2m2/g (paragraph 191, Table 1, Example 1: specific surface area = 0.4 m2/g)
Claim 18
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a particle size Dv50 of 2.00-16.0μm (paragraph 191, Table 1, Example 1: Dv50 = 8 μm)
With regard to claims 19-20, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Liang also teaches the following limitations of claims 19-20 (title; abstract paragraphs 28 & 71):
Claim 19
A positive electrode for a sodium ion battery, comprising the mono-crystalline cathode material according to claim 1, wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material is an active substance of the positive electrode.
Claim 20
A sodium ion battery, comprising the positive electrode of claim 19.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights