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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9-22-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The disclosure remains objected to because in [0025], the paragraph should not be citing “a positive electrode ‘active’ material” because the conductive base material is shown as a current collector (1) as shown below in Figure 1 and therefore is not the active material (2) which is described as having a core-shell structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
119
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
480
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. The rejection of claims 1, 4-6 and 8-10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because: Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 remain rejected because the claim should cite “A positive electrode” and not “The positive electrode active material” because the conductive base material is shown as a current collector and is not the active material. Fig 1 is described as a positive electrode active material (2) distributed on the conductive base material (1) and the active substance (2) has a core-shell structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
119
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claim 1 remains rejected because the claim should cite “A positive electrode comprising …and a positive electrode active material comprising an active substance distributed …, the active substance having a core-shell structure comprising a core comprising a positive electrode active material particle comprising a phosphate-based sodium salt material particle, ….comprises a carbon material; wherein the positive electrode active material comprising the core-shell layer has a median particle size of 5 um to 20 um: wherein the positive electrode active material has at least one of the following features:” Claim 1 remains rejected because it is still unclear what carbon materials contain an oxygen-containing group. Claim 6 remains rejected because it is unclear what the upper range of the mass percentage of the oxygen atoms in the carbon material is allowed to have. Claim 9 remains rejected because the claim should cite “wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises the positive electrode according to claim 1”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 8-10 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0025], the paragraph should cite “In a first aspect, the present application provides a positive electrode. Fig 1 is a schematic structural diagram of a positive electrode…As shown in Fig 1, the positive electrode comprises a conductive base material 1 and an active substance 2 distributed on the conductive base material.” The paragraph should not be citing “a positive electrode active material” because the conductive base material is shown as a current collector and is not the active material as seen in the figure below. Fig 1 is described as a positive electrode active material (should be instead “a positive active material”) (2) distributed on the conductive base material (1) and the active substance (2) has a core-shell structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
119
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-12 are 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.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
The breadth of the claims [where the carbon material contains an oxygen containing group selected from the group consisting of a carboxyl group, a hydroxyl group and an ether group”];
The nature of the invention;
The state of the prior art;
The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor [none];
The existence of working examples [none of the example discuss what carbon material can be used and what carbon material contains an oxygen containing group]; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure [undue experimentation] .
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim(s) is any carbon having an oxygen containing group. Thus, the disclosed specification does not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention recited in the claim(s).
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-12 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 1 is rejected because it is unclear what is meant by “a hole structure”. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear how the active material is “attached to a hole structure” of the conductive base material. Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 are rejected because the claim should cite “A positive electrode” and not “The positive electrode active material” because the conductive base material is shown as a current collector and is not the active material. Fig 1 is described as a positive electrode active material (2) distributed on the conductive base material (1) and the active substance (2) has a core-shell structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
119
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claim 1 is rejected because the claim should cite “A positive electrode comprising …and a positive electrode active material comprising an active substance distributed …, the active substance having a core-shell structure comprising a core comprising a positive electrode active material particle comprising a phosphate-based sodium salt material particle, ….comprises a carbon material; wherein the positive electrode active material comprising the core-shell layer has a median particle size of 5 um to 20 um:wherein the positive electrode active material has at least one of the following features:” Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear what carbon materials contain an oxygen-containing group. Claim 6 is rejected because it is unclear what the upper range of the mass percentage of the oxygen atoms in the carbon material is allowed to have. Claim 9 is rejected because the claim should cite “wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises the positive electrode according to claim 1”. Claim 11 is rejected because the claims should cite “wherein the shell layer has a thickness of 50 nm to 400 nm. Claim 12 is rejected because the claims should cite “wherein the shell layer has a thickness of 100 nm to 300 nm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chung et al. (KR 2016-0136809, machine translation) teaches a positive electrode active material for a sodium iron secondary battery comprising a positive electrode active material comprising NaFePO4 coated with a conductive polymer having a thickness of 2-10 nm that provides a battery having improved performance which can provide an excellent high-rate charging/discharging characteristic and an excellent life characteristic. Chung et al. teaches that the conductive polymer includes poly(3,4-ethylenedioxthiophene), polyaniline, polypyrrole, polythiophene, etc. Chung et al. teaches that the positive electrode active material mixture may further contain a conductive material, a binder, a filler and the like and where the conductive material is present in an amount of 1-30 wt% and the binder is present in an amount of 1-30 wt% which assists in bonding the active material and the conductive material. Chung et al. teaches that the binder can comprise carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), etc. Chung et al. teaches in Figure 4, a TEM image of a conductive polymer-coated NaFePO4 active material and in (4), a positive electrode mixture comprising a positive active material comprising a conductive polythiophene coated on the surface of NaFePO4; a conductive material comprising Denka black and PVDF as a binder.
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 Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Milton Cano can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723