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 claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 2 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.
The terms “relatively away” and “relatively close” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively away” and “relatively close” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The claim does not specify what the transition layer is “relatively close” to, and the claim does not specify what the oxide layer is “relatively away” from. Therefore, the positions of the transition layer and the oxide layer are rendered indefinite.
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.
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 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-112928252-A) (see translation), and in further view of Pan (CN-113991081-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a positive electrode material, comprising: a sodium-containing positive electrode material substrate (see e.g., Zhao; [0014], [0017], [0021]-[0022], regarding the positive electrode material containing Na); and a coating layer, covering at least a part of a surface of the sodium-containing positive electrode material substrate (see e.g., Zhao; [0012], [0025], [0084], regarding sodium salt coating).
Zhao discloses wherein the coating layer of sodium salt comprises any one or a combination of at least two of sodium borate, sodium phosphate, or sodium aluminate (see e.g., Zhao; [0012]), and provides examples with sodium borate (see e.g., Zhao; [0084], [0091], [0098], [0112], regarding examples 1, 2, 3, and 5). Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating layer comprises NaxMyO2, wherein M comprises at least one of B, Si, or P, x > 0, and y > 0. However, Pan discloses wherein a coating layer on a positive electrode material may be sodium metaborate (NaBO2) (see e.g., Pan; [0010]-[0011], [0045]), which is a specific type of sodium borate, and which corresponds with the claimed NaxMyO2, wherein M comprises at least one of B, Si, or P, x > 0, and y > 0. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating layer disclosed by Zhao to be a sodium metaborate as disclosed by Pan in order to improve the cycle stability, voltage retention rate and rate performance of the cathode (see e.g., Pan; [0011], [0084]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhao teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1. Zhao discloses wherein the sodium-containing positive electrode material substrate comprises a layered oxide (see e.g., Zhao; [0084], regarding layered structure, and [0014] wherein the general chemical formula is a layered structure), examples wherein the particle size is 5 μm (see e.g., Zhao; [0105], [0109], [0112], [0116]), that the sodium salt accounts for 0.2-6% of the mass of the positive electrode material (see e.g., Zhao; [0018]) and provides examples such as 0.2%, 2%, and 0.5% (see e.g., Zhao; [0084], [0098], [0112]).
Therefore, modified Zhao teaches wherein the positive electrode material satisfies at least one of following conditions: the sodium-containing positive electrode material substrate comprises one or more of a layered oxide, a Prussian blue compound, or a polyanionic compound; the sodium-containing positive electrode material substrate is a micron-scale particle, and an average particle diameter of the micron-scale particle is 1 μm to 25 μm; a mass percent of the coating layer in the positive electrode material is 0.001% to 3%; and a thickness of the coating layer is 0.5 nm to 30 nm.
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhao teaches a positive electrode plate, comprising the positive electrode material according to claim 1 (see e.g., Zhao; [0049], [0141]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhao a secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 5 (see e.g., Zhao; [0049], [0141]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhao teaches the secondary battery according to claim 6.
Zhao does not explicitly disclose an electrical device, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 6. However, Pan discloses where batteries may be applied in small electronic products (see e.g., Pan; [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the secondary battery of Zhao in an electrical device as disclosed by Pan to provide the benefit of long service life (see e.g., Pan; [0003])
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN-112928252-A) (see translation), Pan (CN-113991081-A) (see translation), and in further view of Yukinobu (US-20160301063-A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhao teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the coating layer comprises: an oxide layer relatively away from the sodium-containing positive electrode material substrate, wherein the oxide layer comprises NaxMyO2 (see above regarding claim 1, regarding NaBO2 coating, which is an oxide layer relatively away from the positive electrode material).
Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating layer comprises: a transition layer relatively close to the sodium-containing positive electrode material substrate, wherein the transition layer comprises an element M-doped region. However, Yukinobu discloses positive electrode oxide particles, which may be of a sodium-ion battery containing sodium in the positive electrode material (see e.g., Yukinobu; [0064], [0068]), wherein the particle surfaces may be treated with a volatile acidic compound including boron (see e.g., Yukinobu; claim 1, [0024], [0028], [0071]), which corresponds with a transition layer relatively close to the sodium-containing positive electrode material substrate, wherein the transition layer comprises an element M-doped region. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode particles of Zhao by treating the surface with a compound such as boron as disclosed by Yukinobu, which forms a transition layer comprising an element M-doped region, in order to improve stability of a paste for forming the material (see e.g., Yukinobu; [0073]), and to provide a simple process, lower cost, and improve various properties of the battery (see e.g., Yukinobu; [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhao teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 2. Zhao discloses that the sodium salt accounts for 0.2-6% of the mass of the positive electrode material (see e.g., Zhao; [0018]), and provides examples such as 0.2%, 2%, and 0.5% (see e.g., Zhao; [0084], [0098], [0112]), which corresponds with wherein the positive electrode materials has a content of residual alkali on a surface of the positive electrode material of 0.5 wt% to 5.5 wt%.
Therefore, modified Zhao teaches the claimed the positive electrode material satisfies at least one of following conditions: a content of residual alkali on a surface of the positive electrode material is 0.5 wt% to 5.5 wt%; and based on a total mass of the coating layer, a mass percent of the element M in the doped region is greater than a mass percent of the element M in the oxide layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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 SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights