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 1-11 and 14-18 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Table 1 in the instant specification appears to mistakenly have two columns labeled “Tap Density (g/cm3)”. The examiner notes that it appears the left-most column with this heading appears to report the powder compaction density of the presented oxides, while the right-most column appears to correctly report the tap density of the presented oxides.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 1-2 recites the limitation “Q is selected from one or more of the group consisting of Cu, Zn, Y and Ti”, which appears to be improper alternative limitation claiming (see MPEP 2173.05(h)) since it is neither in Markush form (e.g. “…group consisting of A, B, and C”) nor is it in proper alternative form (e.g. “…is A, B, or C”). The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “Q is selected from one or more of the group consisting of Cu, Zn, Y, and Ti”.
Claim 5, line 2, appears to be missing a space between “face” and “of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 2021/0155501 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Barker discloses a layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material), comprising an oxide with a general formula NaaAbM1cM2dM3eM4fM5gO2±δ, wherein A is an alkali metal selected from at least one of lithium and potassium, M1 and M3 are one or more metals with an average oxidation state of 2+, M2 and M4 are one or more metals with an average oxidation state of 4+, and M5 is one or more metals with an average oxidation state of 3+ [0014-0021]. Barker further discloses that in the above general formula, a>0, a>b and preferably b=0, 0.75≤(a+b)≤1.0, at least one of d and f is >0, e>0, 0≤g<0.5, and 0≤δ≤0.1 preferably δ=0 [0022-0029].
The skilled artisan would appreciate that Cu, Fe, and Ni have an oxidation state of 2+, Mn has an oxidation state of 4+, and Al has an oxidation state of 3+. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that one embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be, for example, Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2, wherein M1 is Cu, M2 is Mn, M3 is Fe and Ni, M5 is Al, a=0.81, b=0, c=0.1, d=0.49, e=0.4, f=0, g=0.01, and δ=0. The skilled artisan would further appreciate that the above embodiment of Barker may also be represented by the general formula of instant Claim 1, wherein A is Fe and Ni, Q is Cu, C is Al, x=0.81, y=0.49, a=0.4, b=0.1, and c=0.01. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Q may be Cu. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, A contains Fe and Ni. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. Baker further discloses that a phase state of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) is an O3 phase [0014.
Barker is silent to the space group of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material). However, the instant specification teaches that Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 is an exemplary embodiment of the claimed layered oxide (Example 1, [0127-0129]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the space group of at least the above embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) of Barker would be expected to have a space group of R3m. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Regarding Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Barker discloses that one embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2.
Barker is silent to an interlayer distance d003 of a (003) crystal face of the layered oxide. However, the instant specification teaches that Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 is an exemplary embodiment of the claimed layered oxide and has an interlayer distance of 5.36Å (0.536 nm) (Table 2, Example 1, [0127-0129]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the interlayer distance of at least the above embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) of Barker would be expected to be within the claimed range. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Barker discloses that one embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2.
Barker is silent to an intensity of a (003) characteristic peak in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the layered oxide before soaking is I0, the intensity of the (003) characteristic peak in the X-ray diffraction spectrum of the layered oxide after 24 h room-temperature soaking in water is I1. However, the instant specification teaches that Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 is an exemplary embodiment of the claimed layered oxide and has an I1/I0 ratio of 0.4 (Table 2, Example 1, [0127-0129]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that an intensity of a (003) characteristic peak in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the layered oxide before soaking is I0, the intensity of the (003) characteristic peak in the X-ray diffraction spectrum of the layered oxide after 24 h room-temperature soaking in water is I1, in least the above embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) of Barker, I1/I0 would be expected to be within the claimed range. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Regarding Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Barker discloses that one embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2.
Barker is silent to the pH value of an aqueous solution of the layered oxide with a mass concentration of 10%. However, the instant specification teaches that Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 is an exemplary embodiment of the claimed layered oxide and has a pH of 12.53 when included at a concentration of 10% in an aqueous solution (Table 1, Example 1, [0127-0129, 0219-0220]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in least the above embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) of Barker, the pH would be expected to be within the claimed range. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Barker discloses that one embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2.
Barker is silent to the diameter of the layered oxide particles.
However, the instant specification teaches that Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 is an exemplary embodiment of the claimed layered oxide and has a Dv50 of 8 µm (Table 1, Example 1, [0127-0129]). The instant application further teaches that the preparation of the Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 layered oxide includes mixing precursor materials together to form a mixture, ball milling the mixture, then heating the mixture to a temperature of 950°C for 15 h [0129].
Barker teaches that the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be prepared by mixing precursor materials together to form a mixture, ball milling the mixture, then heating the mixture to a temperature between 500°C and 1200°C for a time period between 30s and 20h [0143-0144, 0223-0226]. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in least the above embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) of Barker, the Dv50 would be expected to be within the claimed range. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
Regarding Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. Barker discloses that one embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2.
Barker is silent to the specific surface area BET of the layered oxide. However, the instant specification teaches that Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 is an exemplary embodiment of the claimed layered oxide and has a BET specific surface area of 0.4 m2/g (Table 1, Example 1, [0127-0129, 0219-0220]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in least the above embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) of Barker, the BET surface area would be expected to be within the claimed range. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Regarding Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. Barker discloses that one embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2.
Barker is silent to the tap density of the layered oxide. However, the instant specification teaches that Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 is an exemplary embodiment of the claimed layered oxide and has a tap density of 2.1 g/cm2 (Table 1, Example 1, [0127-0129]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in least the above embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) of Barker, the tap density would be expected to be within the claimed range. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
Regarding Claim 11 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. Barker discloses that one embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) may be Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2.
Barker is silent to the powder compaction density of the layered oxide under a pressure of 300 MPa. However, the instant specification teaches that Na0.81Mn0.49Fe0.2Ni0.2Al0.01Cu0.1O2 is an exemplary embodiment of the claimed layered oxide and has a powder compaction density of 3.46 g/cm2 under a pressure of 300 MPa (Table 1, Example 1, [0127-0129, 0205-0206]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in least the above embodiment of the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) of Barker, the powder compaction density under a pressure of 300 MPa would be expected to be within the claimed range. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Regarding Claim 14 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. Barker further discloses a positive electrode sheet (positive electrode), comprising a positive electrode current collector (aluminum foil) and a positive electrode film layer (electrode film) arranged on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (aluminum foil), wherein the positive electrode film layer (electrode film) comprises a positive electrode active material, and the positive electrode active material comprises the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) according to Claim 1 [0240]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 14 are met.
Regarding Claim 15 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Barker discloses the layered oxide of Claim 1 as set forth above. Barker further discloses a secondary battery (Na-ion cell), comprising the layered oxide (sodium-containing doped layered oxide material) according to Claim 1 [0270]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 15 are met.
Regarding Claim 16 (Dependent Upon Claim 15):
Barker discloses the secondary battery of Claim 15 as set forth above.
Barker does not explicitly disclose a battery module, however, the examiner notes that instant Claim 16 only requires that the battery module includes the secondary battery of Claim 15. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as Barker discloses the secondary battery (Na-ion cell), all of the required aspects of the battery module are met. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 16 are met.
Regarding Claim 17 (Dependent Upon Claim 16):
Barker discloses the battery module of Claim 16 as set forth above. Barker does not explicitly disclose a battery pack, however, the examiner notes that instant Claim 17 only requires that the battery pack includes the battery module of Claim 16. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as Barker discloses the battery module, all of the required aspects of the battery pack are met. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 17 are met.
Regarding Claim 18 (Dependent Upon Claim 15):
Barker discloses the secondary battery of Claim 15 as set forth above.
Barker does not explicitly disclose an electrical apparatus, however, the examiner notes that one embodiment of instant Claim 18 only requires that the electrical apparatus includes the secondary battery (Na-ion cell) of Claim 15. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as Barker discloses the secondary battery (Na-ion cell), all of the required aspects of the electrical apparatus are met. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 18 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights