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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 24, 2024 and July 30, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6, 8-9, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 116093292; machine translation relied upon) in view of Zhang (CN 115763768; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 13 and 16 Yang teaches a sodium-ion secondary battery (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery in an electrical device, because the purpose of a battery is to power an electrical device), the battery comprising a positive electrode active material, where the positive electrode comprises a carbon-coated sodium ferric sulfate material (machine translation at page 7), where the weight content of the carbon is 1% to 20% (machine translation at page 3), overlapping the claimed range of C%. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Yang does not specifically disclose that a surface of the matrix material comprises a polyanionic material. Zhang teaches using a polyanionic coating on a sodium ion battery positive active material, where the coating is NaFePO4 (claimed NaMPO4 of claim 6, where M is Fe) (machine translation at page 2), where the mass of NaFePO4 is 1 to 10% of the mass of the positive electrode (machine translation at page 3, last line – page 4, first line). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an NaFePO4 coating as taught by Zhang for the positive electrode active material of Yang in order to enhance the thermal stability, safety and cycle life, and ensure the electrical activity of the surface of the positive electrode (see Zhang machine translation at page 2). Using the molecular weight of the sodium ferric sulfate of 445.89 g/mol and of NaFePO4 of 173.81 results in a range of the claimed A of from (99/445.89):(1/173.81) = 38.6:1 resulting in A = 0.025 to (90/445.89):(10/173.81) = 3.51:1 resulting in A = 0.222, overlapping the claimed range of 0 < A ≤ 0.1.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 17, Zhang teaches or suggests completely coating the matrix material with the polyanionic material (see machine translation at pages 2-5).
Claims 3-5, 10-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1, 8 and 16 above, and further in view of Ikejiri (WO 2016031561; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 3-5, 10-12 and 18-20, Yang does not specifically disclose the specific surface area, the particle diameter Dv50, or the tap density of the positive electrode material. Ikejiri teaches an average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material of 0.1 to 4 μm (overlapping the claimed range), as well as teaching that if the average particle diameter is too small, the internal resistance of the battery increases, the discharge voltage tends to decrease, and the discharge capacity per unit volume of the battery tends to decrease, (machine translation at page 3), teaches a BET specific surface area of 3 to 50 m2/g (overlapping the claimed range), as well as teaching that if the BET area is too small, discharge capacity decreases during rapid discharge, and if the BET area is too large, the electrode density decreases, discharge capacity per unit volume tends to decrease, and battery life is shortened (machine translation at page 6), and teaches tap density of particularly 0.5 g/ml or more (overlapping the claimed range), as well as teaching that if tap density is too small, the electrode density decreases and the discharge capacity per unit volume of the battery tends to decrease. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use specific surface area, particle diameter, and tap density values as taught by Ikejiri, or to optimize these parameters, in the positive electrode active material of Yang (combined) in order to achieve good battery performance and avoid the problems enumerated above (see Ikejiri machine translation at pages 3 and 6).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Waechter (US Pub. No. 2013/0164627).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Yang does not specifically disclose the Dv50 or Dv99 of the polyanionic material. Waechter teaches a more preferred range of size of electroactive material particles of 20 to 300 nm (overlapping the claimed ranges) (paragraph [0030]), as well as teaching that using electroactive materials as nanoparticles increases the conductivity to an appropriate range (paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use particle sizes as taught by Waechter for the polyanionic material of Yang (combined) in order to achieve sufficient conductivity (see Waechter at paragraph [0004]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Zhang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Su (CN 109728251; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 15, Yang does not specifically disclose a compaction density of the positive electrode plate. Su teaches a sodium ion battery in which the positive electrode plate further preferably has a compaction density of 1.3 to 2.0 g/cm3, overlapping the claimed range, as well as teaching that increasing compacted density improves the sodium ion battery energy density (machine translation at page 4), with a specific embodiment having a compaction density of 1.8 g/cm3 (machine translation at page 5 – example 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a compaction density as taught by Su in the battery of Yang (combined) in order to improve the sodium ion energy density of the battery (see Su machine translation at page 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 12, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights