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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group (e.g., Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 February 2026. Claims 13-14 were previously cancelled. Thus, claims 1-12 are pending with claims 1-5 and 10-12 being considered in the present Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), in view of 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 Zhang et al. (“Na3V2(PO4)3: an advanced cathode for sodium-ion batteries”, Nanoscale, 2019, 11, 2556; DOI: 10.1039/c8nr09391a), hereinafter Das, Li, and Zhang.
Regarding Claims 1-5 and 10, 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). With respect to the claimed Formula 1 (e.g., AyB3+x-yV2-xCx(PO4)3-z/3Dz), Das suggests A is potassium (thereby satisfying A is Li or K), B is sodium (thereby satisfying B is Li, Na, or K), and C is magnesium (thereby satisfying C is a transition metal, post-transition metal, or an alkaline earth metal). Das suggests an amount of potassium (i.e., Ay, e.g., 0.09) is substituted for the sodium (B3-y) in the NVP type material which expands the Na-ion channel, thereby facilitating diffusion of the sodium ion during charging/discharging; the amount of potassium (Ay) suggested by Das overlaps with that claimed (e.g., 0.09 overlaps with Ay = 0.001 to 0.5). Further, Das suggests the substitution of magnesium (Cx) for vanadium (V2-x) in the NVP type material is expected to improve electronic conductivity; the amount of magnesium (Cx) suggested by Das overlaps with that claimed (e.g., 0.07 overlaps with Cx = 0.001 to 1).
Das does not suggest an increase in sodium (e.g., B) by an amount of Cx, i.e., 3+x in 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 B3+x-y) with the expectation of achieving charge balance, a stabilized crystal structure, and improved electrochemical properties, as suggested by Li.
Das does not suggest: i.) Ay is Li, ii.) Cx is Mn, Fe, Al, Ca, Ni, Ti, and Mo, and iii.) Dz is F. However, Zhang suggests the substitution of other metals (Cx) for vanadium besides Mg in an amount of 0.01 to 0.1 may contribute to improving the performance of NVP type materials; for example, Zhang suggests the substitution of Mn in an amount of 0.3-0.5, Fe in an amount up to 0.5, Al in an amount of up to 0.3, and Ca, Ni, Ti, and Mo in an amount of up to 0.04, for vanadium. Additionally, Zhang suggests the substitution of Li in an amount of > 0 to 0.5 for sodium improves rate performance. Finally, apart from cation doping, anion doping of fluorine in an amount of >0 to 0.3 for the polyanion (PO4) is also an effective way to enhance Na storage performance of NVP. See e.g., pages 6-8/21, section 3.2 Elemental doping. See also the Na rich Ni doped NVP material which offers improved electrochemical performance with Ni substitution from 0.01-0.07, title, abstract, and pages 1-2, 5, 7-8/9. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute Mn, Fe, Al, Ca, Ni, Ti, and Mo for vanadium, K and/or Li for sodium, and F for PO4 with the expectation of improved electrochemical performance compared to undoped NVP, as suggested by Li and Zhang.
As set forth above, the amounts of each element suggested by Das, Li, and Zhang overlap with that claimed, or are close, and the resulting formula overlaps with that claimed or is close, hence a prima facie case has been established.
Regarding Claim 11, Das suggests the electrode material further comprises a binder (i.e., PVDF, see e.g., 2.3 Electrochemical measurements, page 2/7).
Regarding Claim 12, Das suggests the electrode material further comprises an electrically conductive material selected from the group consisting of carbon black, acetylene black, ketjen black, reduced graphene oxide, and carbon nanotube (i.e., carbon black, see e.g., 2.3 Electrochemical measurements, page 2/7.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 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 rejection of claim 1).
The main difference in the claims is the substitution of Ay (Li or K) for B (e.g., Na). However, Zhang suggests the substitution of Li and K ions for sodium (e.g., Na3-xLix) 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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bag (“Understanding the Na-Ion Storage Mechanism in Na3+xV2−xMx(PO4)3 (M = Ni2+, Co2+, Mg2+; x = 0.1−0.5 Cathodes”, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2020, 3, 8475-8486; https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsaem.0c01118) suggest the same as Li (cited in the rejection, e.g., rich Na for charge balance, improved performance) but with higher substitution values of Cx (Ni, Co, Mg), hence higher values of Na.
Soundharrajan et al. (“The advent of manganese-substituted sodium vanadium phosphate based cathodes for sodium-ion batteries and their current progress: a focused review”, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2022, 10, 1022–1046; DOI: 10.1039/d1ta09040b) describes additional Na+ ions are accommodated in the NVP structure if the vanadium ions were replaced by Cx (e.g., Mn, Fe, Mg, Cu, etc.), and the resulting material provides good capacity retention, see e.g., Table 2, No Material 1, 21, 24, etc.
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