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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, 13, and 15-19 in the reply filed on 7/24/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18: “A powder device” and “the battery model” appear to be typos of “A power device” and “the battery module”.
Claim 19: “A powder device” appear to be a typo of “A power device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (US 2023/0238518 A1, hereinafter Liang).
Re Claim 1. Liang teaches a positive electrode active material (abstract), comprising a layered sodium composite (abstract) oxide containing antimony having a chemical formula of Formula I,
NaMn0.34Fe0.23Ni0.23Sb0.1Mg0.05Si0.05O2 (Example 6),
in which x=1, a=0.34, b=0.23, c=0.23, d=0.1, e=0.1, a+b+c+d+e=1, (b+c)/(a+d+e)=0.85, and L is one or more selected from Mg, Si.
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
Re Claim 3. Liang teaches wherein L is one or more selected from Mg, Si (Example 6).
Re Claim 4. Liang teaches wherein the sodium composite oxide containing antimony includes an O3 phase which has a layered crystal structure with a space group R3m (para. 66).
Liang does not explicitly disclose that the sodium composite oxide containing antimony includes an O3 phase.
However, since Liang and the claimed material employ similar elements and concentrations, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (the oxide having an O3 phase) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Liang. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Re Claim 5. Liang teaches wherein the sodium composite oxide containing antimony has an interlayer spacing of from 0.53 nm to 0.54 nm (para. 84).
Re Claim 6. Liang teaches wherein the sodium composite oxide containing antimony has a X-ray diffraction spectrum that satisfies Ii/Io> 0.2,wherein Ii is the peak intensity of the X-ray diffraction peak on the 003 crystal surface of the O3 phase of the sodium composite oxide containing antimony after being immersed in deionized water for 24 hours, and Io is the peak intensity of the X-ray diffraction peak on the 003 crystal surface of the O3 phase of the sodium composite oxide containing antimony before being immersed in deionized water (para. 67).
Re Claim 7. Liang teaches wherein, the positive electrode active material satisfies one or more of the following conditions (1) to (4): (1) the volume average particle size Dv50 of the positive electrode active material is from 10 µm to 30 µm (para. 85); (2) the specific surface area of the positive electrode active material is from 0.1 m2/g to 5 m2/g (para. 87); (3) the tap density of the positive electrode active material is from 1 g/cm3 to 3 g/cm3 (para. 88); and (4) the powder compaction density of the positive electrode active material under a pressure of 8 tons is from 3 g/cm3 to 5 g/cm3 (para. 89).
Re Claim 13. Liang teaches a secondary battery (para. 5), characterized in comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
Re Claim 15. Liang teaches a battery module (para. 155), including the secondary battery according to claim 13.
Re Claim 16. Liang teaches a battery pack (para. 158), including the battery module according to claim 15.
Re Claim 17. Liang teaches an electrical device (para. 161), including the secondary battery according to claim 13.
Re Claim 18. Liang teaches a power device (para. 162), including the battery module according to claim 15.
Re Claim 19. Liang teaches a power device (para. 162), including the battery pack according to claim 16.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (CN 111268746 A, hereinafter Guo, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Guo teaches a positive electrode active material (abstract), comprising a layered sodium composite oxide (abstract) containing antimony having a chemical formula of Formula I,
NaMn0.45Ni0.3Sb0.05Li0.1Mg0.1O2 (Example 8),
in which x=1, a=0.45, b=0, c=0.3, d=0.05, e=0.2, a+b+c+d+e=1,(b+c)/(a+d+e)=0.43, and L is one or more selected from Li, Mg.
Re Claim 3. Guo teaches wherein L is one or more selected from Li, Mg (Example 8).
Re Claims 4-7. Guo does not explicitly disclose the properties of the positive electrode active material.
However, since Guo and the claimed material employ similar elements and concentrations, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (having an O3 phase which has a layered crystal structure with a space group R3m, an interlayer spacing of from 0.53 nm to 0.54 nm, a X-ray diffraction spectrum that satisfies Ii/Io> 0.2,wherein Ii is the peak intensity of the X-ray diffraction peak on the 003 crystal surface of the O3 phase of the sodium composite oxide containing antimony after being immersed in deionized water for 24 hours, and Io is the peak intensity of the X-ray diffraction peak on the 003 crystal surface of the O3 phase of the sodium composite oxide containing antimony before being immersed in deionized water, (1) the volume average particle size Dv50 of the positive electrode active material is from 3 pm to 30 pm, and optionally from 5 pm to 15 pm; (2) the specific surface area of the positive electrode active material is from 0.1 m2/g to 5 m2/g, and optionally from 0.3 m2/g to 3 m2/g; (3) the tap density of the positive electrode active material is from 1 g/cm3 to 3 g/cm3,and optionally from 1.5 g/cm3 to 2.5 g/cm3; and (4) the powder compaction density of the positive electrode active material under a pressure of 8 tons is from 3 g/cm3 to 5 g/cm3, and optionally from 3.5 g/cm3 to 4.5 g/cm3) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Guo. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Re Claim 13. Guo teaches a secondary battery (abstract), characterized in comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1.
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang.
Liang teaches wherein, in Formula I, a=0.34, b=0.23, c=0.23, d=0.1, e=0.1, a+b+c+d+e=1, (b+c)/(a+d+e)=0.85.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo.
The teachings of Guo have been discussed above.
Guo fails to specifically teach a battery module, a battery pack, an electrical device, and a power device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Guo to make a battery module having the claimed secondary battery, and a battery pack having the battery module, to increase the power output.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of an electrical device having the claimed secondary battery and a power device having the battery module or the battery pack, to utilize the claimed battery in real life.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (“High-Entropy chemistry layered O3-type structure in Na-ion cathode,” Angewandte Chemie, Vol. 59, pp. 264-269, hereinafter Zhao, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 2. Guo teaches a=0.45, c=0.3, d=0.05, e=0.2, a+b+c+d+e=1,(b+c)/(a+d+e)=0.43, but fails to teach that 0.2<b<0.3.
The research of Zhao encompasses layered sodium oxide for cathode. Zhao teaches Fe can be added to sodium oxide to improve the stability and capacity of the oxide with specific example of b=0.15 (p264).
In view of Zhao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Guo to employ Fe in the amount of b=0.15 to improve the stability and capacity of the oxide.
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights