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 § 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.
Claims 13-15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barker et al (US 20150037679). Regarding claim 13, the reference is directed to an electrode material comprising the general formula AzMbXzOy and specific examples of NaNiSbO4 and LiNiSbO4 (abstract, [0021], Table). Both of these compounds are anticipatory of the formula (ANi(1-x)MnxSbOy) of claim 1. The active material is in a cathode, and in a method of forming a battery, an anode, cathode, and separator are provided ([0076]-[0083]). Regarding claim 14, the anode can comprise lithium metal or carbon ([0076]-[0083]). Regarding claims 15 and 22, the limitations are considered to be met by the reference as they further limit an optional component (Li) in claim 13. Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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.
Claims 16-19. 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al.
The reference is applied for the reasons stated above. However, the reference is not anticipatory of the claimed formulas (0.05<x<0.9 in claim 16, 0.4<x<0.6 in claim 18, x=0.2 in claim 20).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because it would have first been obvious to use Ni and Mn in the same compound as disclosed in some of the compounds in [0021] of the reference, and the specific ratios in claims 16 and 18 of the two compounds is also suggested. For example, Li4Fe(1-z)(Ni0.5Mn0.5)zSbO6 is disclosed, as well as the sodium analogue. As the claimed generic formula ANi(1-x)MnxSbOy is considered to recite the A element (alkali metal) at a ratio of 1.0, it would have been obvious to employ Ni and Mn in recited 0.5 ratios in the NaNiSbO4 and LiNiSbO4 compounds noted above. Further, in the disclosure of Barker, it is “particularly preferred” that the metal M in the generic formula is Cu, Ni, Co, Mn, Ti Al, V, Mg and/or Fe ([0014]).
The specific discharge capacities in claims 17 and 19 would thereby be met as this is an inherent property of a material.
Regarding claim 21, which recites a material having the formula ANi0.8Mn0.2SbO2 (x=0.2, y=2), it is noted that y in the reference (oxygen subscript) can be between 2 and 10, and preferably 2 to 8 ([0012], [0020]). A material having an oxygen ratio of 2 is therefore rendered obvious. The ratio of Mn and Ni can also be adjusted from the examples noted above, and therefore the ratio x=0.2 is also considered to be obvious. Accordingly, claim 21 (including the recited discharge capacity) is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites a battery operating voltage of more than 4.5 V. Although this is not explicit in Barker, the artisan could have selected an appropriate anode material so as to generate as large a voltage as possible in the resulting battery. As such, the limitation is rendered obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. in view of Sun et al (WO 2019017736).
Barker et al. is applied to claim 13 for the reasons stated above. However, it is not expressly taught that the active material is doped with a transition metal or non-transition metal oxide, as recited in claim 20.
Sun et al. is directed to cathode active materials having metal or metal oxide doping (Ti or TiO2, see Figures, abstract).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the doping metal oxide of Sun in the active material of Barker et al. In the abstract, Sun et al. teach that the doping results in an improvement in the physical and electrochemical properties of the material itself as well as stability the structure during charge/discharge cycles, with the consequent enhancement of battery performance. Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the doping metal oxide of Sun in the active material of Barker et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
August 20, 2026
