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 1-20 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS references with a line through them, in the IDS submitted on 12/16/2025, have not been considered by the examiner, because either the reference or a translation wasn’t provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, the stoichiometric coefficient for Ni is 1-x-y-z-c. Based on ranges provided for x, y, z, & c, this stoichiometric coefficient can be 1-0.5-0.5-.26-0.09 = -0.35. It is unclear how Ni can have a negative stoichiometric coefficient. For present examination, Examiner presumes that if 1-x-y-z-c<0, then nickel isn’t present.
Claims 2-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 12 states:
“a full width at half maximum (FWHM) (110) of a (110) diffraction peak having a diffraction angle 2θ of around 64.9° ranges 0.08-0.35”
The meaning of “ranges 0.08-0.35” is unclear.
Claim 13 states:
“the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a powder compacted density of 2.8-4.2 g/cm3 at a pressure of 7000-9000 kg”
The meaning of “a pressure of 7000-9000 kg” is unclear. “kg” is a unit of mass – not pressure.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20240088376A1 (Liang).
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, M is a doping element, and N is a cladding element, wherein M and N is each one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zn, Co, Mn, Al, Zr, Y, Ca, Li, Rb, Cs, W, Ce, Mo, Ba, Mg, Ta, Nb, V, Sc, Sr, B, F, P and Cu elements (paragraphs 125-126: layered oxide is Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2, which is chemical formula 1 with a=-0.19, x=0.49, y=0.2, M=Cu & z=0.1, N=Al & c=0.01)
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.
The present specification teaches the following for achieving a mono-crystalline cathode material: (a) mix, (b) sinter, and (c) crush (page 4). Liang uses this same method to prepare the layered oxide: (a) mix, (b) calcination / heat, and (c) milling / crushing (paragraphs 22-27 & 79; claim 12). Liang uses the claimed chemical formula, and the method taught in the specification for achieving mono-crystalline cathode material; therefore, Liang’s layered oxide is presumably mono-crystalline.
With regard to claims 2-4 & 6-9, 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):
Claim 2
-0.40≤a≤0, 0.15≤x≤0.5, 0.15≤y≤0.5 (a=-0.19, x=0.49, y=0.2)
Claim 3
M is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zn, Ti, Co, Al, Zr, Y, Ca, Li, Rb, Cs, W, Ce, Mo, Ba, Mg, Ta, Nb, V, Sc, Sr, B, F, P and Cu (M=Cu)
Claim 4
M is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zn, Al, B, Ti, Ca, Y, Mg, Nb, Zr and Cu (M=Cu)
Claim 6
0≤z≤0.13 (z=0.1)
Claim 7
N is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Co, Mn, Y, B, F, P, Nb, Zr, W, Sr and Mg (N=Al)
Claim 8
N is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, B, Nb and Mg (N=Al)
Claim 9
0<c<0.05 (c=0.01)
With regard to claim 10, 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, Liang’s layered oxide is mono-crystalline.
With regard to claim 11, 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 claims 12-13, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claims 12-13 state:
Claim 12
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a powder X-ray diffraction spectrum (XRD) in which a full width at half maximum (FWHM) (110) of a (110) diffraction peak having a diffraction angle 2θ of around 64.9° ranges 0.08-0.35
Claim 13
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a powder compacted density of 2.8-4.2 g/cm3 at a pressure of 7000-9000 kg
These limitations were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. It is not possible to analyze these limitations until the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is resolved; therefore, these claim limitations are disregarded for present prior art analysis.
With regard to claims 16-18, 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, 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240088376A1 (Liang) in view of US20210331938A1 (Fold), together “modified Liang”.
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, M is a doping element, and N is a cladding element, wherein M and N is each one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zn, Co, Mn, Al, Zr, Y, Ca, Li, Rb, Cs, W, Ce, Mo, Ba, Mg, Ta, Nb, V, Sc, Sr, B, F, P and Cu elements (paragraphs 125-126: layered oxide is Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2, which is chemical formula 1 with a=-0.19, x=0.49, y=0.2, M=Cu & z=0.1, N=Al & c=0.01)
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 is 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.
With regard to claims 2-4 & 6-9, 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):
Claim 2
-0.40≤a≤0, 0.15≤x≤0.5, 0.15≤y≤0.5 (a=-0.19, x=0.49, y=0.2)
Claim 3
M is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zn, Ti, Co, Al, Zr, Y, Ca, Li, Rb, Cs, W, Ce, Mo, Ba, Mg, Ta, Nb, V, Sc, Sr, B, F, P and Cu (M=Cu)
Claim 4
M is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zn, Al, B, Ti, Ca, Y, Mg, Nb, Zr and Cu (M=Cu)
Claim 6
0≤z≤0.13 (z=0.1)
Claim 7
N is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Co, Mn, Y, B, F, P, Nb, Zr, W, Sr and Mg (N=Al)
Claim 8
N is one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, B, Nb and Mg (N=Al)
Claim 9
0<c<0.05 (c=0.01)
With regard to claim 5, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 5 states:
M is Zn
Liang teaches a generic version of the layered oxide formula (abstract; paragraph 23): NaxMnyAaQbCcO2, where
0.66<x≤1, 0.2≤y≤0.6, 0.3≤a≤0.6, 0<b≤0.2, 0<c≤0.1,
A is one or two of Fe and Ni,
Q is one or more transition metal elements containing 3d or 4d orbital electrons except Fe and Ni, and
C is one or two of Al and B.
Selecting x=0.81, y=0.49, A is Fe and Ni with a=0.2, Q=Zr with b=0.1, and N=Al with c=0.01, Liang’s formula is Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Zr0.1Al0.01O2. This is the same as Liang’s formula discussed above under claim 1, except that Zr replaces Cu.
This generic version of the layered oxide formula, however, overlaps chemical formula 1 of claim 1 because some of the stoichiometric coefficient ranges overlap. Not all of Liang’s ranges fall within the claimed ranges. 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, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed ranges, the ranges in claim 5 are an obvious variant of Liang’s range.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace Cu with Zr in Liang’s Example 1 (paragraph 126), because both are transition metals containing 3d or 4d orbital electrons, and Liang teaches that any transition metals containing 3d or 4d orbital electrons, except Fe and Ni, can be used for that element in the formula.
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, 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 claims 12-13, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claims 12-13 state:
Claim 12
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a powder X-ray diffraction spectrum (XRD) in which a full width at half maximum (FWHM) (110) of a (110) diffraction peak having a diffraction angle 2θ of around 64.9° ranges 0.08-0.35
Claim 13
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a powder compacted density of 2.8-4.2 g/cm3 at a pressure of 7000-9000 kg
These limitations were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. It is not possible to analyze these limitations until the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is resolved; therefore, these claim limitations are disregarded for present prior art analysis.
With regard to claims 14-15, modified Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claims 14-15 state:
Claim 14
the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a moisture mass content of less than 1500 ppm
Claim 15
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 or < 1500 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
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