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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claims 4-9, 11 and 12 are 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.
Claims 4, 11 and 12 recites the limitation "the ammonium bicarbonate solution". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claims 4, 11 and 12, Applicant claims, in step B, “adjusting the pH of the solution”. It is unclear which solution this is referring to. Is it the hydrazine hydrate solution, the oxalic acid solution of the ferromanganese mixed solution? Clarification is required.
Similarly, in claim 6, Applicant claims, “the pH of the solution is adjusted to 4-5”. It is unclear which solution this is referring to. Is it the hydrazine hydrate solution, the oxalic acid solution of the ferromanganese mixed solution? Clarification is required.
Claims 7 recites the limitation "the first calcined product". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “grinding the material”. Several materials are introduced in the claims and it is not clear which material is being referred to here. Clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the heat preservation section" and “the cooling section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 10, 13 and 14 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Karthikeyan, teaches a cathode material for a sodium ion battery comprising NaMnBO3 which is combined with a carbon material (see abstract). Karthikeyan teaches such a composition as an alternative to lithium-ion batteries. However, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests including iron in the sodium containing composition as claimed, nor does it teach a titanium and vanadium containing material in the composition. The prior art is silent as to a motivation to modify Karthikeyan to arrive at the claimed composition.
Relevant Prior Art
CN 106865562 A – Discloses a sodium ion battery comprising a Na3V2(BO3)3/C composition which is formed by inert atmosphere calcination (see examples 3 and 4), similar to the Na3V2(BO3)3/C phase of the instant claims. However, this reference teaches this composition as the core of the active material rather than a minority coating phase, as claimed. Nor does it teach Na(Fe,Mn)BO3 or Na2Ti3O7, as claimed.
CN 102244263 A – Discloses a layered structure comprising a LiFePO4 core coated with lithium vanadium phosphate followed by an outer layer of amorphous carbon. This references, however, is silent regarding the claimed sodium borate/titanate phases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights