DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3, 5, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (CN 113517433), machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 10, Hu discloses a positive active material for a sodium battery comprising:
a cathode cation co-doped modified P2-type layered sodium ion battery active material: Na0.67Cu0.1Mn0.9O1.9F0.1 (Embodiment 1).
In the above composition, M1a is zero, M2 is copper, a + b = 0.1, and z = 0.1.
Regarding claim 7, based on the above composition, the active material would be expected to have the recited I/Io ratio given its composition. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 11, batteries are commonly used in electric devices.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 2000135).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 10, Liu discloses F-substituted P2-type oxide cathodes for sodium-ion batteries comprising:
Na2/3Ni1/3Mn2/3O2−xFx (x = 0.05) (abstract).
In the above composition, M1a is zero, M2 is nickel, a + b = 0.33, and z = 0.05.
Regarding claim 7, based on the above composition, the active material would be expected to have the recited I/Io ratio given its composition. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 11, batteries are commonly used in electric devices.
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 2000135) in view of Tarascon et al. (US 2019/0181447).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches starting material Na2/3Ni1/3Mn2/3O2 to make Na2/3Ni1/3Mn2/3O2−xFx (x = 0.05) (abstract), which results in a value of 0.33/(1-0.33) = 0.49.
Liu does not teach a value in the range of 0.25 to 0.43.
Tarascon, directed to positive electrode material, Na-based P2 material may be selected from Na0.67Ni1/3Mn2/3O2 (as Liu above) and may also be Na0.67Ni0.25Mn0.75O2 (para 0020). This results in a value of 0.25/(1-0.25) = 0.33.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the substitute fluorine in to other comparable positive active materials used for the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights