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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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.
In particular, the applicant claims a chemical compound that follows the formula
N
a
4
M
n
1
-
x
M
o
x
V
P
O
4
3
. However, it is the examiner’s understanding that such a chemical would not be possible as the value of the amount of either the sodium or the vanadium in the compound would necessarily have to change as molybdenum is added due to the change in the compound’s charge (Cui et al (CN 116130621) paragraph [n0009] specifically teaches a molar ratio range for of 3.95-4.05:0.8-0.99:1.0-1.2:2.95-3.05 for the elements Na:Mn:V:P; further evidence is provided by Wang et al. (Boosting Long-Life Sodium Storage of Na4MnV(PO4)3 via Synergistic Bond Structure Regulation and Interfacial Modification) in figure 4D, various compositions are compared and include minute changes in the amount of sodium as a result of the differences in charges), however minute. Therefore, it is unclear whether the applicant intended for the values of sodium and vanadium to remain constant or if the applicant is merely rounding the values (due to the changes being minute). For the purposes of examination, the formula
N
a
4
M
n
1
-
x
M
o
x
V
P
O
4
3
will be interpreted to include formulae with values within 5% deviation.
Claims 2-9 are likewise rejected due to inheriting this unclarity.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 116130621; English machine translation relied upon, translation obtained from Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, Cui meets the claimed,
A cathode material ([n0004] teaches a cathode material).
Cui does not explicitly teach a cathode material with a formula
N
a
4
M
n
1
-
x
M
o
x
V
P
O
4
3
.
However, Cui teaches a cathode material with a formula
N
a
3.95
M
n
0.95
M
o
0.05
V
P
O
4
3
(See [n0035]). In the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the amount of sodium of 3.95 is substantially close to the claimed amount of 4, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the ratio of the materials to achieve the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 2, Cui does not explicitly teach a cathode material with the formula as taught in Claim 1 with x having a value less than 0.1.
However, Cui teaches a cathode material with a formula
N
a
3.95
M
n
0.95
M
o
0.05
V
P
O
4
3
. In the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the amount of sodium of 3.95 is substantially close to the claimed amount of 4, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to vary the ratio of the materials to achieve the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 3, Cui does not explicitly teach a cathode material with the formula as taught in Claim 1 with x having a value less than 0.05.
However, Cui teaches a cathode material with a formula
N
a
3.95
M
n
0.95
M
o
0.05
V
P
O
4
3
(See [n0035]). In the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the amount of sodium of 3.95 as taught by Cui is substantially close to the claimed amount of 4. The amount of molybdenum of 0.05 as taught by Cui is also substantially close the claimed amount of <0.05.
Regarding Claim 4, Cui does not explicitly teach a cathode material with the listed chemical formulas:
N
a
4
M
n
0.98
M
o
0.02
V
P
O
4
3
,
N
a
4
M
n
0.97
M
o
0.03
V
P
O
4
3
, or
N
a
4
M
n
0.96
M
o
0.04
V
P
O
4
3
.
However, Cui does teach a formula:
N
a
4
-
n
-
2
x
M
n
1
-
x
M
x
V
P
O
4
3
, wherein “M” is a dopant ion such as molybdenum and “n” is the valence state of that dopant ion, in this case, 6, and “x” is a value from 0 to 0.2. In the case where the claimed amount overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2133.05). In this case, one such applicable chemical compound as taught by Cui is
N
a
3.94
M
n
0.97
M
o
0.03
V
P
O
4
3
.
Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05). In this case the amount of sodium of 3.94 as taught by Cui is substantially close to the amount of sodium of 4 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, the examiner notes that this claim is directed towards a product. Product claims are not limited by the manipulation of the recited steps only the structure implied by the steps. Since the product of the prior art is substantially identical to that of the instant claim as every element is met by Cui as described above, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference (see MPEP 2113).
Furthermore, Cui meets the claimed,
The cathode material as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Mo-doped sodium metal phosphate is synthesized by a sol-gel method ([n0014] and [n0037] teaches a method of production substantially similar to the method of production taught in the applicant’s specification [0043], including creating solution in deionized water, heating the mixture and drying it, calcinating the mixture, and then sintering).
Regarding Claim 6, Cui meets the claimed,
The cathode material as claimed in claim 1 further comprises a guide agent and an adhesive ([n0008] teaches the use of a conductive agent in the cathode material. [n0035] teaches the use of a binder in the cathode material).
Regarding Claim 7, Cui meets the claimed,
The cathode material as claimed in claim 6, wherein a content of the Mo-doped sodium metal phosphate is 70 wt% to 95 wt% ([n0035] teaches the cathode material comprising 80% by mass), a content of the guide agent is 2 wt% to 15 wt% ([n0035] teaches the conductive agent comprising 10% by mass), and a content of the adhesive is 2 wt% to 15 wt% ([n0035] teaches the binder comprising 10% by mass).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 116130621) in view of Chandel et al. (Significant Enhancement in the Electrochemical Performances of a Nanostructured Sodium Titanate Anode by Molybdenum Doping for Applications as Sodium-Ion Batteries).
Regarding Claim 8, Cui meets the claimed,
A sodium ion battery ([0020] teaches a sodium-ion battery), comprising: a cathode containing the cathode material as claimed in claim 1 ([n0035] teaches a cathode using the specified cathode material as claimed in claim 1; see Claim 1 Rejection), an anode ([n0035] teaches metallic sodium as a counter electrode); […] and an organic electrolyte ([n0035] teaches an organic electrolyte comprising PC-EMC-FEC).
Cui does not explicitly teach a separator.
Chandel teaches a molybdenum doped anode for use in a sodium-ion battery.
Chandel meets the claimed,
[…] a separator between the cathode and the anode (2.3 teaches a glass fiber separator);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the separator as taught by Chandel in the battery in order to prevent internal short circuits of the battery.
Regarding Claim 9, Cui meets the claimed,
The sodium ion battery as claimed in claim 8, wherein the anode comprises an anode material ([n0035] teaches metallic sodium as the negative electrode active material).
Cui does not specifically teach a metal foil used with the anode or that the anode material is Mo-doped.
Chandel teaches a molybdenum doped anode for use in a sodium-ion battery.
Chandel meets the claimed,
[…] and a metal foil (Abstract teaches an anode comprising an anode material. 2.3 teaches a copper foil), and the anode material is a Mo-doped electrode material (Abstract teaches a molybdenum-doped sodium titanate nanostructured anode).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a metal foil with the anode active material in order to better act as a current collector and improve electron flow. It would have further been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a molybdenum-doped electrode material as taught by Chandel in the battery in order to obtain a higher cycling stability and a high specific capacity (See Section 4. Conclusions).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW Y. HO whose telephone number is (571)842-1342. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 6:00, Mon - Thurs.
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, Xiao S. Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/A.Y.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights