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 .
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.
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 10 and 11 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the two diffraction peaks" in lines 1-2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be dependent off of claim 9.
In claim 11, if the two paragraphs are used as alternatives instead of both together, there is an antecedent basis issue for the diffraction peak at 41° and the diffraction peak at 45°.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN Publication 114843498, U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0186500 will be used as an English translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Wang discloses a sodium-containing oxide cathode material having the formula Na0.8(Mn0.38Fe0.19Ni0.19Cu0.19)Nb0.05O2, wherein the Nb is an element of a coating layer on the cathode material (Paragraphs 0006, 0193, Table 2).
As to claim 9, Wang shows in Fig. 3 that the sodium-containing metal oxide cathode material with a zirconium coating has two diffraction peaks between 41° and 46° and three diffraction peaks between 30° and 40°.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches that the diffraction peaks between 41° and 46° have a FWHM of 0.21 (Table 3).
As to claim 11, Wang shows in Fig. 3 that the two diffraction peaks between 41° and 46° are around 41° and 45°.
Regarding claim 12, Wang shows in Fig. 3 that the three diffraction peaks between 30° and 40° are at about 33°, 35° and 36°.
As to claim 13, Wang shows in Fig. 3 that the ratio of peak intensity of a (003) diffraction peak to peak intensity of a (104) diffraction peak is just under 1 based on the height of the peaks in the graph.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Wang discloses that the tap density of the cathode material is 1.8 g/cm3 (Table 3).
As to claim 16, Wang states that a cathode material having a lamellar structure containing α-NaFeO2 is being improved using the cathode materials described above.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches that the cathode material is used to form a positive electrode (Paragraph 0155).
As to claim 20, Wang discloses that the positive electrode is used with a negative electrode and electrolyte having a sodium salt to form a sodium ion battery (Paragraphs 0161, 0211).
Wang teaches every limitation of claims 1, 2, 9-16, 19 and 20 of the present invention and thus anticipates the claims.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 3-8, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN Publication 114843498, U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0186500 will be used as an English translation).
The teachings of Wang have been discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Wang fails to specifically teach an example having Zn and Ti while also having an element as a coating element, and that total free sodium content of the cathode material is 2.3% or less.
Regarding claims 3-8, Wang teaches that the cathode material can have the formula Na1-x[MnyFezMu]M′jO2-wFw, wherein 0≤x≤0.4, 0.2≤y≤0.6, 0.1≤z≤0.4, 0<u≤0.5, 0<j≤0.1, 0≤w≤0.1, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Li, Mg, Al, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Co, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, W, La, Mo, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, and Ta; and M′ is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Co, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, W, La, Mo, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sn, and Ta (Paragraph 0063-0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the cathode material of Wang could include Zn and Ti as the A element of the formula because Wang shows that Zn and Ti are options for the M element in the formula of Wang, which is equivalent to the A element of the present invention. Regarding claims 17 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the cathode material of Wang would have less than 2.3% free sodium content because the formula of the cathode material of Wang is the same as that of the present invention and would thus have the same properties. Additionally, Wang teaches that the cathode material is created to reduce the amount of soluble alkali on the surface of the cathode material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights