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 and Claim Status
The amendment filed 24 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1–20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, Claim 1 includes the limitation “0 < z < 0.26” which excludes the lower limit of z = 0, however Claim 5, which depends upon Claim 1, recites the limitation “0 ≤ z ≤ 0.16” which includes the lower limit of z = 0. Furthermore, Claim 1 includes the limitation “0.15 ≤ y ≤ 0.5”, however Claim 5 recites a broader limitation of “0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.5”. Thus, Claim 5 is broader than Claim 1 and as such, files to further limit Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claims 1–7 and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109817970 B; see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claims 1–5, Wang discloses a mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery (see single-crystal sodium-ion battery electrode material, [n0004]) characterized in that the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery comprises a composition (see composition of the monocrystalline sodium-ion battery electrode material, [n0021]) having a formula of NaFe1−x−aMnxMaO2 wherein 0 < x ≤ 0.5, 0 < a ≤ 0.5, and M is one or more of Ni, Cu, Mg, Co, Cr, Ti, and Al elements ([n0021]), which overlaps in scope with the formula set forth in Claims 1–5. Note that Wang is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of cathode materials for secondary batteries cycling sodium.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the formulae of the mono-crystalline cathode material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a functional mono-crystalline cathode material.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium ion battery is characterized 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 ([n0093], FIG. 8–11).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium ion battery is characterized in that particles of the mono crystal morphology is lamellar (see plate-like, [n0010], [n0093]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above. Wang further discloses ([n0021]) wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery is characterized as having a particle size Dv50 of 9–15 µm.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above. Wang further discloses ([n0021]) wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery is characterized as having a particle size Dv50 of 9–15 µm which overlaps with the claimed range of 4.0–13 µm.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions for the particle size Dv50 of the mono-crystalline cathode material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a functional mono-crystalline cathode material.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above. Wang further discloses a positive electrode (see electrode sheet, [n0105]; note that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that such an electrode sheet will serve as the positive electrode of Wang) according to Claim 1, wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material is an active substance of the positive electrode ([n0105]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Wang discloses the positive electrode as set forth above. Wang further discloses a sodium-ion battery (see button cell, [n0105]) comprising the positive electrode of Claim 19.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109817970 B; see attached machine translation) as applied to Claims 1–7 and 17–20 above, in view of Zhou et al. (US 2018/0063262 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery is characterized as having 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 0.06–0.35.
Zhou teaches a mono-crystalline (see primary mono-crystal particles, [0008]) cathode material (see lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese composite oxide cathode material, [0006]) for lithium-ion battery (see lithium ion battery, Zhou [0006]) comprising a composition having a formula of LiaNixCoyMnzO2, wherein 1.0 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.30 ≤ x ≤ 0.90, 0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.40, 0.05 ≤ z ≤ 0.50, and x + y + z = 1 ([0007]), this being a lithium analogue comparable to the compositions of Wang and the claimed invention. Zhou teaches ([0025]) that when the mono-crystalline cathode material is characterized by a powder XRD diffraction spectrum in which a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a (110) diffraction peak having a diffraction angle 2θ of around 64.9° ranges from 0.07–0.15, the mono-crystalline cathode material has good structural stability, and therefore exhibits good electrical properties, and particularly has a better performance at high temperature, high voltage, and security.
Zhou is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of cathode materials for secondary batteries cycling alkali metals. Further, the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery of Wang and the mono-crystalline cathode material for lithium-ion battery of Zhou have comparable compositions, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the above teachings of Zhou to be applicable to the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery of Wang. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery of modified Wang such that it is characterized as having 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 from 0.07–0.15 as taught by Zhou, for the purpose of ensuring good structural stability and electrical properties and better performance at high temperature, high voltage, and security.
Claims 10 and 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109817970 B; see attached machine translation) as applied to Claims 1–7 and 17–20 above, in view of Zhu et al. (US 2022/0037660 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery is characterized as having a powder compacted density of 2.8–4.2 g/cm3 at a pressure of 7000–9000 kg.
Zhu teaches a cathode material (see positive electrode active material, [0028]) for sodium-ion battery (see sodium ion battery, [0030]) comprising a similar sodium metal oxide composition ([0027]). Zhu teaches ([0051]) that when the cathode material for sodium-ion battery has a compacted density of 3.0–4.1 g/cm3 at a pressure of 8 tons (equivalent to 8000 kg; 1 metric ton = 1000 kg), the result is a high capacity and energy density.
Zhu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of cathode materials for secondary batteries cycling sodium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery of modified Wang such that it is characterized as having a powder compacted density of 3.0–4.1 g/cm3 at a pressure of 8000 kg as taught by Zhu, for the purpose of achieving high capacity and energy density.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery is characterized as having a pH that is equal to or below 13.1 (Claim 14), or equal to or below 13.0 (Claim 15).
Zhu teaches a cathode material (see positive electrode active material, [0028]) for sodium-ion battery (see sodium ion battery, [0030]) comprising a similar sodium metal oxide composition ([0027]). Zhu teaches ([0028]–[0029]) that when the pH value of the cathode material is controlled to be within a range of 10.5 to 13, the stability, capacity performance, coulombic efficiency of the cathode material can be improved.
Zhu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of cathode materials for secondary batteries cycling sodium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery of modified Wang such that it is characterized as having a pH that is within a range of 10.5 to 13, as taught by Zhu, for the purpose of improving the stability, capacity performance, and coulombic efficiency.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery is characterized as having a specific surface area of 0.35–1.2 m2/g.
Zhu teaches a cathode material (see positive electrode active material, [0028]) for sodium-ion battery (see sodium ion battery, [0030]) comprising a similar sodium metal oxide composition ([0027]). Zhu teaches ([0047]–[0048]) that when the specific surface area falls within a range of 0.85–1.2 m2/g, the liquid absorption during preparation of the cathode slurry can be reduced, the particle dispersion uniformity and compacted density of the cathode active material layer can be increased, and the energy density and rate and cycling performance of the sodium-ion battery can be increased.
Zhu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of cathode materials for secondary batteries cycling sodium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery of modified Wang such that it is characterized as having a specific surface area of 0.85–1.2 m2/g, as taught by Zhu, for the purpose of achieving reduced liquid absorption during preparation of the cathode slurry, increased particle dispersion uniformity and compacted density of the cathode active material layer, and increased energy density and rate and cycling performance of the sodium-ion battery.
Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 109817970 B; see attached machine translation) as applied to Claims 1–7 and 17–20 above, in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0336262 A1).
Regarding Claims 11–13, modified Wang discloses the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery is characterized as having a moisture mass content of less than 3000 ppm (Claim 11), less than 2800 ppm (Claim 12), or less than 2500 ppm (Claim 13).
Liu teaches a cathode material (see positive electrode active material, [0028]) for sodium-ion battery (see sodium ion battery, [0091]) comprising a similar sodium metal oxide composition ([0028]). Liu teaches that when a moisture mass content (see water content, [0028]–[0030], [0036]) is less than 6000 ppm ([0138]), and preferably from 50 ppm to 2000 ppm ([0142]), the stability of the cathode material for sodium-ion battery to air and carbon dioxide is high, the oxidation activity towards electrolyte was low, and the migration of ions and electrons inside the particles was less hindered, resulting in improved capacity elaboration and cycle performance ([0030], [0138]).
Liu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of cathode materials for secondary batteries cycling sodium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mono-crystalline cathode material for sodium-ion battery of modified Wang such that it is characterized as having a moisture mass content of 50 ppm to 2000 ppm as taught by Liu, for the purpose of achieving high stability to air and carbon dioxide, low oxidation activity towards electrolyte, and less hindered migration of ions and electrons inside the particles, resulting in improved capacity elaboration and cycle performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 24 February 2026 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights