DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the reply to the restriction requirement mailed 2026-05-04, Applicant has elected the apparatus claims, 1-5, 10, and 15-18. The method claims 6-9 and 11-14 have been withdrawn without traverse.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-5, 10, and 15-18 are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
all tildes (~) should be replaced with dashes
claims 4 and 17 say “wherein at least one of (1) to (5) are comprised” which is ungrammatical
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (CN 115172671 to Liao et al.) in view of Jin (CN 113871565 to Jin et al.) and/or Sakamoto (JP 2005-026218 to Sakamoto) in further view of Wang (CN 115132987 to Wang et al.), the Office cites to provided machine English translations.
Regarding Claim 1, Liao teaches:
a sodium-ion battery cathode comprising a current collector and a cathode material layer on at least one side (pp. 1 and 3)
the cathode material comprising a layered transition metal oxide and a polyanionic compound such as Prussian blue compounds or sodium iron phosphates (p. 3)
the transition metal oxide including Na0.67Ni0.25Mg0.08Mn0.66Sn0.01O2 (Example 1)
the polyanionic compound including Na4Fe(PO4)2P2O7 and Na2FeP2O7 (Examples 1 and 4)
wherein the mass ratio of the transition metal oxide to the polyanionic compound is 4:1 (Example 4)
The “mass ratio” limitation as claimed includes density terms, and is therefore a kind of volumetric ratio. While Liao does not explicitly teach the “true densities” of the compounds, the instant specification indicates that the compounds used in Liao, produced according to conventionally known methods, would be expected to fall within the claimed ranges, because they are substantially the same as those indicated in the specification as having those densities. The ratio ρ1/ ρ2 would therefore be expected to fall within the claimed range of 1.25-1.86, absent evidence that the claimed range involves a critical narrowing of the true densities for these materials that was unconventional in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Liao does not explicitly teach:
the particle size distribution of the layered transition metal oxide
the particle size of the polyanionic compound
Jin, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a cathode comprising a transition metal oxide and a polyanionic compound, teaches a D50 of the transition metal oxide from 12-19 microns, including 12 microns, and a D10 from 2.3-12.5 microns, including 4 and 5 microns (p. 3). Sakamoto, also from the same field of invention, regarding a cathode for a secondary battery, teaches controlling the transition metal oxide particle size distribution to improve cycling characteristics. More specifically, it teaches a ratio D10/D50 between 0.2 and 0.7, including examples at 0.4 (¶ 00025-0027, Table 1), to improve packing density of the electrode plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a particle size ratio D10/D50 of, e.g., 0.4, as taught in Sakamoto, for the transition metal oxide in Liao, since Liao is silent as to the particle size distribution, and Jin and Sakamoto teach ratios in the claimed range improve cycling performance by improving packing density of the electrode plate. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Wang, meanwhile, also from the same field of invention, regarding a cathode for a secondary battery comprising a transition metal oxide and a polyanionic compound, teaches providing polyanionic compound particles with D’50 of 0.2 -7 microns and transition metal oxide particles with D50 of 10-15 microns to improve packing density of the cathode composite layer (pp. 2, 4). It also provides specific examples with, e.g., D50 = 10 microns and D’50 = 0.5 microns (p. 4), well within the claimed inequality for D50 and D’50. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select median particle sizes for the two components within the claimed inequality, such as 10 microns and 0.5 microns, since Wang teaches it improves packing density, and hence, energy density of the resulting layer.
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, Liao teaches:
substantially the same sodium transition metal oxides and substantially the same polyanionic compounds including sodium iron phosphate(s) (p. 2), formed according to conventional methods in the art and that would therefore be expected to have true densities overlapping the claimed range, the true density being a natural property of such materials, absent a showing that the claimed range involves a narrower density range than that conventionally found in the art for such materials
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, Liao does not teach:
the particle size distribution of the layered transition metal oxide
the particle size of the polyanionic compound
Jin and Sakamoto, however, render obvious median transition metal oxide sizes of e.g. 10-12 microns, and D10 values of 2-4 microns, as discussed above. Wang, also discussed above, renders obvious median particle sizes for the polyanionic compounds of around half a micron to improve cathode plate packing density. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Liao teaches:
a binder and a conductive agent (p. 3)
Regarding Claim 5, Liao teaches:
a sodium ion battery (p. 1)
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (CN 115172671 to Liao et al.) in view of Jin (CN 113871565 to Jin et al.) and/or Sakamoto (JP 2005-026218 to Sakamoto) and Wang (CN 115132987 to Wang et al.), in further view of Oljaca (US 2014/0377659 to Oljaca et al.) the Office cites to provided machine English translations.
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Liao does not explicitly teach:
compaction density of the cathode
Oljaca, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a secondary battery cathode, teaches compaction densities from 3.5 - 3.7 g/cc to improve energy density (Fig. 19). It would have been obvious to compact the cathode of Liao to values overlapping the claimed range in order to improve energy density, as taught by Oljaca. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights