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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-16 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 contains the limitation NASICON type fluorophosphate. The ranges for x, y, and z in Claim 1 also encompass the limitation where x=y=z=0 which would therefore not be a NASICON fluorophosphate. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear on whether NASICON type phosphates infringe on claim 1. For purposes of compact prosecution the prior art search is limited to where x, y, and z are > 0 si nce dependent claims include fluorophosphates and the Specification as filed at Page 3 discloses the beneficial effect of the ionic synergy of M, N, and fluorine as compared to the prior art. Claims 2 and 10- 16 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons of indefiniteness. Claim 3 contains the limitation NASICON type fluorophosphate. The ranges for x, y, and z in Claim 3 also encompass the limitation where x=y=z=0 which would therefore not be a NASICON fluorophosphate. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear on whether NASICON type phosphates infringe on claim 3 . For purposes of compact prosecution the prior art search is limited to where x, y, and z are > 0 since dependent claims include fluorophosphates and the Specification as filed at Page 3 discloses the beneficial effect of the ionic synergy of M, N, and fluorine as compared to the prior art. Claims 4-9 depend on claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons of indefiniteness. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 1 , 8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al (US 2003/0013019) . Barker teaches an electrode active material repres en ted by the formula AaMb(XY4) c Zd w herein : A is selected f rom the group consisting of Li, Na, K, and mixtures thereof, and 0<a≤6; M comprises one or metals, M’1-mM’’m, where M’ is at least one transition metal from Groups 4 to 11; M’’ is at least one element from Groups 2, 3, 12, 13, or 14 of the periodic table, and 0<m<1; XY4 is selected from the group consisting of X’O4-xY’Xx, X’O4-yY’2y, X’’S4, and mixtures thereof, where X’ is P, As, Sb, Si, Ge and mixtures thereof; X’’ is P, As, Sb, Si, Ge and mixtures thereof; Y’ is halogen; 0≤x<3; and 0<y<4; and 0<c≤3; Z is OH, halogen, or mixtures thereof and 0<d≤6; and wherein M, X, Y, Z, a, b, c, d, x and y are selected so as to maintain electroneutrality of said compound ; and Where preferred embodiments have a structure similar to NASICON materials (see [0012-0019]). Therefore the composition of claim 1 is a species of Barker’s composition where A is Na or a mixture of Na and Li, or K; M is V and a mixture with at least one of Ni, Fe, Ca, Ti, Cr, Zn, Ag, Mo, Mg and Mn; X is a mixture of P and at least one of B, Si, Ge, and As; Z is F; and the contents overlap with the ranges taught by Barker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to select among the genus as taught by Barker and choose any workable species including the claimed species in order to produce an electrode active material as taught by Barker. Further regarding the ranges of x, y, and z, a s set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare an electrode active material as taught by Barker where the content of x, y, and z are in any workable or optimum range overlapping with the range taught by Barker including the claimed ranges to produce an electrode active material taught by Barker. Regarding claim 8, the claim is a product by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown , 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann , 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). Here, Barker discloses an electrode comprising an electrode active material on a substrate comprising a currently collector attached to one side of an electrode film and used as the cathode (i.e., a cathode electrode plate), where the electrode active material is a genus that encompasses the species of the claimed cathode material (see [0121-0128] and claim 1 as applied above for the NASICON-TYPE fluorophosphate). The instant product by process claim therefore implies an identical structure in the form of a cathode plate and in the chemical composition of the active material . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare a cathode plate as taught by Barker where the active material is selected from the genus as taught by Barker and choose any workable species including the claimed species in order to produce an electrode active material as taught by Barker. Regarding claim 10, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to select among the genus as taught by Barker and choose any workable species including the claimed species where A is a mixture of Na and Li or K in order to produce an electrode active material as taught by Barker. Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to select among the genus as taught by Barker and choose any workable species including the claimed species where X is a mixture of P and B or Si in order to produce an electrode active material as taught by Barker. Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to select among the genus as taught by Barker and choose any workable species including the claimed species where A is a mixture of Na and Li and X is a mixture of P and Si in order to produce an electrode active material as taught by Barker. Regarding claims 13 and 14, As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare an electrode active material as taught by Barker where the content of x, y, and z are in any workable or optimum range overlapping with the range taught by Barker including the claimed ranges to produce an electrode active material taught by Barker. Regarding claim 1 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to select among the genus as taught by Barker and choose any workable species including the claimed species where A is a Na or a mixture of Na and Li and K; M is vanadium; X is a mixture of P and Si or P and B in order to produce an electrode active material as taught by Barker. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare an electrode active material as taught by Barker where the content of x, y, and z are in any workable or optimum range overlapping with the range taught by Barker including the claimed ranges to produce an electrode active material taught by Barker. Claim (s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker as applied to claim 1 or 8, and in further view of Liu et al (US 2022/0123303). As applied to claim 1 , Barker teaches a cathode plate comprising a NASICON-type fluorophosphate cathode active material according to the formula in claim 1 . As applied to claim 8, Barker teaches a cathode plate comprising a NASICON-type fluorophosphate cathode active material according to the formula in claim 3. Regarding claim 2, Barker does not teach the fluorophosphate wherein the NASICON-type fluorophosphate is further coated with carbon to obtain a material Na3MxV2P3-yO12Fz@C. Liu teaches a positive electrode material comprising a composite of a sodium halophosphate with carbon where the sodium halophosphate is coated with a certain amount of carbon (see [0018] and [0047]). Liu teaches the sodium halophosphate having the molecular formula Na2M1hM2k(PO4)X/C in which M1 and M2 are transition metals each independently selected from Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Nb, Mo, Sn, Ba and W; and X is a halogen selected from F, Cl, and Br (see [0047]). Liu teaches that the positive electrode containing carbon coating has improved powder resistivity and that powder resistivity is an important parameter affecting electrochemical performance of the sodium-ion battery, especially discharge specific capacity and rate performance (see [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the positive electrode material as taught by Barker where the sodium fluorophosphate comprises a carbon coating as taught by Liu to improve the electrochemical performance of a battery using the electrode. Regarding claim 9, Barker does not teach the electrode in a sodium-ion battery. Liu teaches a positive electrode material comprising a sodium halophosphate in a sodium-ion battery (see [0002]). Liu teaches that compared to lithium, sodium has advantages in richness (i.e., resource availability) and cost and suggests that sodium fluorophosphate would be desirable in sodium-ion batteries because of higher theoretical capacity, lower cost and better cycle stability (see [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the cathode plate comprising a sodium metal vanadium fluorophosphate as taught by Barker where the cathode plate is used in a sodium-ion battery as taught by Liu since sodium-ion batteries are lower cost than lithium and sodium is plentiful. Furthermore, Liu suggests that Barker’s sodium metal fluorophosphate would have a reasonable expectation of success since Liu also discloses sodium metal fluorophosphates have higher theoretical capacity, lower cost, and better cycle stability. Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to select among the genus as taught by Barker and choose any workable species including the claimed species where A is a Na or a mixture of Na and Li and K; M is vanadium; X is a mixture of P and Si or P and B in order to produce an electrode active material as taught by Barker. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare an electrode active material as taught by Barker where the content of x, y, and z are in any workable or optimum range overlapping with the range taught by Barker including the claimed ranges to produce an electrode active material taught by Barker. Claim (s) 3 -7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Yang et al (CN108423650A). Regarding claim 3, Barker teaches a method of manufacture of the compound above in claim 1 by uniformly mixing salt sources of A, M, XY4 species, and halide Z (see [0077] to [0083]). F urther regarding a pentavalent vanadium salt, Barker discloses that the M in the starting material may have any oxidation state depending on the oxidation state required in the desired product and the oxidizing or reducing condition contemplated (Barker therefore teaches a method using any oxidation states of V including pentavalent) (See [0079]). Barker further teaches a method where the reaction is heated under reducing conditions (see [0086]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to select among the genus as taught by Barker and choose any workable species including the claimed species in order to produce an electrode active material as taught by Barker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Barker where a pentavalent vanadium salt, a sodium salt, an M-containing salt, an N Regarding plasma heating, Yang teaches a method for preparing positive electrode material lithium iron phosphate of lithium-ion battery, the method comprising ball-milling a raw material comprising an iron source, phosphorous source and carbon source, drying and putting into a plasma furnace under the inert atmosphere or reducing atmosphere (see Abstract). Yan discloses that the beneficial effects are using low temperature plasma reduces the energy consumption, saves costs and heats the particles more uniformly (see summary of the invention). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method for preparing a positive active material as taught by Barker where heating comprises plasma heating as taught by Yang, since it reduces energy consumption, saves costs and heats the particles more uniformly as suggested by Yang. Regarding claim 4, Barker teaches a method where the stoichiometry of the final product is determined by the limiting reagent and where the starting materials are provided in exact molar amounts (see [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method to produce a positive electrode material as taught by Barker and Yang where the content of x, y, and z and therefore the source materials are in any workable or optimum stoichiometric range overlapping with the range taught by Barker including the claimed ranges to produce an electrode active material taught by Barker. Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches a method where the carbon source is selected form the group consisting of citric acid, one or more of glycol, sucrose, glucose and the dosage is 0.1-20 wt% (see Summary of the Invention). Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches a method where the carbon source is selected form the group consisting of citric acid, one or more of glycol, sucrose, glucose and the dosage is 0.1-20 wt% (see Summary of the Invention). It has been held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.I citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) , In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) , Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) , and In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378-79, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as disclosed by Barker and Yang where the carbon source comprises citric acid and sucrose as the mere combination of known equivalents for adding carbon to the positive electrode materials. Further regarding the ratio of sucrose and citric acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Barker and Yang where the concentrations sucrose and citric acid in any workable optimum range 0-20 wt% including the claimed range Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses a method where the atmosphere is a mixed gas of hydrogen and argon (see Example 2). Regarding the reducing atmosphere further comprising nitrogen, Barker teaches that nitrogen and argon are both inert gases in the heating step for forming positive electrodes (see [0107]). It has been held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.I citing In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) , In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) , Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) , and In re Couvaras, 70 F.4th 1374, 1378-79, 2023 USPQ2d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2023) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention for the process for preparing a positive electrode as taught by Barker and Yang where the reducing gas atmosphere comprising a mixed gas of hydrogen and argon further comprises nitrogen as the mere combination o f known equivalents for inert gases in heating of positive electrode raw materials for form positive electrodes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5833 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sally A Merkling can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6297 . 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. /MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738