SODIUM-ION BATTERY CATHODE MATERIAL
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/7/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-13 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: a comma is needed after dependent “claim [number]” (i.e. “The method of claim 1, …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend comprises to “comprise”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the stoichiometric ratio includes an equal molar quantity of both sodium and manganese, the molar quantity of sodium and manganese at least three times the molar quantity of lithium. However, there is no example in the specification where in the stoichiometric ratios of Na and Mn are equal. The examples clearly disclose Na and Mn are present in amounts 0.72 and 0.75 moles, respectively. These amounts are clearly different and not equal.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 discloses wherein the doping element includes Ti or Si in a molar quantity less than 2% of the molar quantity of nickel and manganese.
However, nickel is not disclosed in the method claimed in claim 1 nor is nickel disclosed in the specification as being present in the mixture as claimed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5-7 and 9 recite the limitation "molar ratio". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the stoichiometric ratio includes an equal molar quantity of both sodium and manganese, the molar quantity of sodium and manganese at least three times the molar quantity of lithium. However, there is no example in the specification where in the stoichiometric ratios of Na and Mn are equal. The examples only disclose Na and Mn are present in amounts 0.72 and 0.75 moles, respectively. These amounts are clearly different and not equal.
Claim 16 discloses heating and cooling at 2°C per minute. Is this rate applied for both heating and cooling? The specification and wording make it unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (Appl. Mater. Interfaces, (2020), 12, 41485-41494).
Regarding claim 1, Hu et al. teach a method of forming a sodium-ion (NIB) battery (Title and Section 2: Experimental Section.) comprising:
determining a stoichiometric ratio of sodium, manganese and lithium for a battery cathode (Section 2.1 discloses using Na, Mn, and Li powders in stoichiometric amounts.);
combining and agitating the sodium, manganese and lithium to form a granular mixture in the determined stoichiometric ratio (Section 2.1 discloses wet ball milling the powders.); adding a doping element to the granular mixture (Section 2.1 discloses the addition of titanium. Further, page 41488| left column| first paragraph discloses Ti acts as a dopant.); and
sintering the granular mixture for a predetermined time and temperature for forming a cathode material (Section 2.1 discloses calcining the mixture for 12 hours at 700°C).
Regarding claim 2, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the doping element includes Ti or Si (Section 2.1 discloses Ti.)
Regarding claim 3, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein sintering includes heating at between 700° C and 900° C for between 12-16 hours (Section 2.1 discloses calcining the mixture for 12 hours at 700°C).
Regarding claim 4, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode material exhibits two sodium ions in prismatic sites for forming a P2 layered oxide structure (Section 1, first paragraph discloses the oxide formed is a layered oxide AxTMO2, wherein A is an alkaline metal (in this case Na), wherein the form of coordination for A site is prismatic.).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 1, further comprising adding an amount of the doping element in a quantity less than 10% the molar ratio of any of the sodium, manganese and lithium (Section 2.1 discloses forming the compound Na0.8Li0.27Mn0.68Ti0.05O2 wherein Ti is at 5%.).
Regarding claim 9, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the stoichiometric ratio includes a molar quantity of both sodium and manganese at least twice the molar ratio of lithium (Section 2.1 discloses forming the compound Na0.8Li0.27Mn0.68Ti0.05O2 in this case Na is present at nearly 3 times that of Li, Mn is 2.5 times that of Li.).
Regarding claim 11, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the sodium, manganese and lithium are at least 98% pure (Section 2.1 discloses each of the Na, Mn, and Li powders have a purity of 99.99% each.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paulsen et al. (US 2016/0013470 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Paulsen et al. teach a cathode material compound for a secondary Na-ion battery (Abstract), comprising:
a sintered, granular mixture (Paragraphs 0060-0061 disclose sintering the materials.) consisting of: 0.72 moles Na; 0.75 moles Mn; 0.24 moles Li; and 0.01 moles Ti or Si (Abstract discloses the cathode material comprises NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and z<0.2 and y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti. Further, claim 61 discloses NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and 0<z<0.2 and 0<y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti.). Therefore, Na is present in an amount between 0.66-0.95 moles, Mn is present in an amount of 0.45-1 moles, Li is present in an amount between 0-0.33 moles, and Ti is present in an amount between 0-0.2 moles.
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 7, 10, 12, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (Appl. Mater. Interfaces, (2020), 12, 41485-41494) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paulsen et al. (US 2016/0013470 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 6. However, they do not teach wherein the amount of the doping element is equal to or less than 2% the molar ratio of any of sodium, manganese, or lithium.
Paulsen et al. teach a rechargeable sodium battery cathode (Abstract) comprising the formula NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and z<0.2 and y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti (Abstract). Even more specifically, the formula comprises NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and 0<z<0.2 and 0<y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti (Claim 61). Therefore, in this case sodium is between 0.66-0.95 and titanium is between 0 and 0.2 which is within the range including 2%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hu with that of Paulsen in order to produce high capacity battery materials at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 10, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 9. However, they do not teach wherein the stoichiometric ratio includes an equal molar quantity of both sodium and manganese, the molar quantity of sodium and manganese at least three times the molar quantity of lithium.
Paulsen et al. teach a rechargeable sodium battery cathode (Abstract) comprising the formula NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and z<0.2 and y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti (Abstract). Even more specifically, the formula comprises NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and 0<z<0.2 and 0<y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti (Claim 61). Therefore, in this case sodium is between 0.66-0.95 and manganese can be between 0.47 and 1 which shows an overlap. Finally, with these ranges, both sodium and manganese can be at least three times the molar quantity of lithium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hu with that of Paulsen in order to produce high capacity battery materials at a lower cost.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Hu et al. teach the method of claim 5. However, they do not teach wherein the doping element includes Ti or Si in a molar quantity less than 5% of the molar quantity of Li or wherein the doping element includes Ti or Si in a molar quantity less than 2% of the molar quantity of nickel and manganese.
Paulsen et al. teach a rechargeable sodium battery cathode (Abstract) comprising the formula NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and z<0.2 and y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti (Abstract). Even more specifically, the formula comprises NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and 0<z<0.2 and 0<y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti (Claim 61). Therefore, in this case, the amount of Li is between 0 and 0.33 and the amount of Ti is between 0 and 0.2. These ranges overlap with each other such that Na is present in an amount between 0.66-0.95 moles, Mn is present in an amount of 0.45-1 moles, Li is present in an amount between 0-0.33 moles, and Ti is present in an amount between 0-0.2 moles. As such, Ti being present in a molar quantity less than 2% overlaps with the ranges.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hu with that of Paulsen in order to produce high capacity battery materials at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 15, Hu et al. teach a method for forming a P2 Na-ion battery cathode material (Abstract), comprising:
mixing and agitating a stoichiometric ratio of cathode material elements (Section 2.1 discloses mixing via wet ball milling.). However, Hu do not specifically disclose the mixed and agitated cathode material elements are sintered at 800° C for 14 hours to result in active cathode material for a battery.
Hu (AMI) et al. disclose sintering the materials at 700° C for 12 hours (Section 2.1).
MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
However they do not teach wherein the cathode material includes: 0.72 moles Na; 0.75 moles Mn;0.24 moles Li; and 0.01 moles Ti or Si.
Paulsen et al. teach a cathode material compound for a secondary Na-ion battery (Abstract), comprising: a sintered, granular mixture (Paragraphs 0060-0061 disclose sintering the materials.) consisting of: 0.72 moles Na; 0.75 moles Mn; 0.24 moles Li; and 0.01 moles Ti or Si (Abstract discloses the cathode material comprises NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and z<0.2 and y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti. Further, claim 61 discloses NaxMO2 wherein M=Mn1-y-zLiyAz and 0<z<0.2 and 0<y<0.33 and 0.66<x<0.95. Further, A can comprise Ti.). Therefore, Na is present in an amount between 0.66-0.95 moles, Mn is present in an amount of 0.45-1 moles, Li is present in an amount between 0-0.33 moles, and Ti is present in an amount between 0-0.2 moles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hu with that of Paulsen in order to produce high capacity battery materials at a lower cost.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hu and Paulsen et al. teach the method of claim 15. Further, Hu et al. teach heating and cooling the agitated cathode material elements (Section 2.1). However, they do not teach heating and cooling at 2°C per minute.
MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (Appl. Mater. Interfaces, (2020), 12, 41485-41494; referred to as “Hu (AMI)” for clarity.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 110 277 540 A, referred to as “Hu ‘540” for clarity.).
Regarding claim 8, Hu (AMI) et al. teach the method claim 1. Further, wherein the sodium further comprises Na2CO3 (Section 2.1). However, they do not teach wherein manganese and lithium further comprise Mn2O3 and LiOH-H2O.
Hu ‘540 et al. disclose making a P2-phase oxide comprising the formula NazM5eM6fO2 wherein 0.22≤z≤0.66 and e+f=1, M5 is a transition metal element such as Mn and Ti and M6 is a non-transition element such as Li and Si (Abstract; paragraph 0010). Further, manganese and lithium sources can comprise oxide and hydroxides (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hu (AMI) with Hu ‘540 in order to improve safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 February 10th, 2026