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
Claim 2 was cancelled and claims 6-9 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-12 are considered in the present Office action.
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Applicant’s argument with respect to “extraordinary electrochemical performance” (i.e., 90 mAh/g at 5C) is not persuasive. A single data point is insufficient to show unexpected results of the entire claimed range because applicant’s single result is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention; applicant has not provided a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)). The burden is on the applicant to explain the data, provide comparisons, establish the results are greater than expected, and significant (MPEP 716.02(a), (b), and (e)). In the absence of sufficient data, comparison thereof, and discussion of unexpectedness/significance, examiner does not find applicant’s argument persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment and remarks appear to try to establish the newly cited claimed range (narrowed with respect to C and x) as providing unexpected results. A successful showing of unexpected results regarding a narrower range than was originally claimed/taught would bring forth a new matter issue, as it would show that the newly claimed range is a different invention than the originally disclosed range. See MPEP 2163(I)(B). No new matter issue has been made at this time, as arguments of unexpected results are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (CN 114256446) in view of Das et al. (“K+ and Mg2+ co-doped bipolar Na3V2(PO4)3: An ultrafast electrode for symmetric sodium ion full cell”, Journal of Power Sources 461 (2020) 228149; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228149), Li et al. (“Na-Rich Na3+xV2−xNix(PO4)3/C for Sodium Ion Batteries: Controlling the Doping Site and Improving the Electrochemical Performances”, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 27779−27787; DOI: 10.1021/acsami.6b09898), and Du et al. (CN 102509789), hereinafter Zeng, Das, Li, and Du. Zeng, Das, and Li are of record.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5 and 10, Zeng suggests an electrode material for a metal ion battery comprising an electrode active material having the following formula: A3V2-mBm(PO4)3-nDn, wherein A3 is at least one of Li, Na, and K (thereby suggesting the claimed AB, where A is Li or K, and B is selected from Li, Na, and K, with the proviso that A and B are not simultaneously Li, or simultaneously K), Bm is at least one of Ca, Mg, Ti, Al, Fe, Bi, Sr, Mn, Co, Sc, Tc, Zn, Pd, Mo, Sn, Sb, As, Se, and 0 < m ≤ 0.5 (thereby suggesting the claimed Cx elements with x between 0.1 to 1 (or 0.1 to 0.5)), and D is at least one of F, Cl, Br, and I with n between 0.05 to 0.16 (thereby suggesting the claimed Dz, where D is F, Cl, Br, and I, and z is between 0.001 to 0.5). See e.g., [0006-0011, 0030, 0078, 0136], etc.
Zeng discloses A includes Na and K, but does not explicitly disclose a specific molar ratio of the two elements. However, Das suggests an electrode material comprising electrode active material (e.g., NVPMK, i.e., Na2.91K0.09V1.93Mg0.07(PO4)3, see e.g., pages 2, 5/7) resulting in superior performance compared to undoped samples (i.e., NVP). Das suggests an amount of potassium (i.e., 0.09) is substituted for sodium (i.e., 3 - 0.09 = 2.91) in the NVP type material which expands the Na-ion channel, thereby facilitating diffusion of the sodium ion during charging/discharging. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute potassium for sodium (i.e., Na3-yKy, where y is 0.09) with the expectation of facilitated the diffusion of the sodium ion during cell cycling. The amount of potassium suggested by Das overlaps with that claimed (e.g., 0.09 overlaps with the claimed Ay = 0.001 to 0.5 and Ay = 0.01 to 0.1).
Zeng does not suggest an increase in sodium by an amount of Cx, i.e., the claimed B(3+x-y). However, Li suggests to ensure Cx for the V site, more Na is introduced to keep the charge balance; further, Li observes the extra Na+ increases the Na content and stabilizes the crystal structure, and offers improved electrochemical properties, see e.g., pages 1, 5, 7-8/9. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to increase the sodium variable (i.e., B) by an amount Cx (resulting in the claimed B3+x-y, in view of Das) with the expectation of achieving charge balance, a stabilized crystal structure, and improved electrochemical properties, as suggested by Li.
Zeng suggests the substitution of F (i.e., claimed as Dz) for PO4 sites, but does not suggest the substitution ratio is (PO4)3-(z/3)Dz where z is between 0.001 to 0.5. However, Du suggest fluorine doped sodium vanadium phosphate electrode material such that fluorine is substituted into the PO4 sites as (PO4)3-(x/3)Fx where x is between 0.001 to 0.5, or 0.01 to 0.1 (i.e., x is between 0 to 6, see e.g., [0010], which overlaps with both ranges), wherein there is an expectation improved circulation/cycling stability, longer cycle life, stability of the crystal structure, and improved rate performance, [0003, 0006-0007], examples and figures. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the molar ratio of F to PO4 is (PO4)3-(z/3)Fz where z is between 0.001 to 0.5 (or 0.01 to 0.1) with the expectation of improved circulation/cycling stability, longer cycle life, stability of the crystal structure, and improved rate performance, as suggested by Du.
Regarding Claims 11-12, Zeng suggests the electrode material includes a binder and electrically conductive material (i.e., carbon black, acetylene black, cnt, reduced graphene oxide, etc.), see e.g., [0062].
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3-5 and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 9-11 of copending Application No. 18319147 in view of Zhang (cited in the last action).
The main difference in the claims is the instant claims require the substitution of B (e.g., Na) with A (e.g., K). However, Zhang suggests the substitution of K ions for sodium leads to positive effects; larger K ions as the dopant broadens the Na-ion channel and stabilizes the NASICON framework, and K and Li doping (for Na) leads to better rate performance. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the B element (e.g., Na) is substituted with Li or K with the expectation of improved rate performance, as suggested by Zhang.
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights