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
Claims 6-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-5 and 10-12) in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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 3-5 and 11-12 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.
Regarding Claim 3 lines 3 and 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 4 lines 2, 4, and 7 , the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 5 lines 3 and 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of the clause "prepared by a sodium-ion cathode material" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear the structure which is required by the claim. Is "prepared by a sodium-ion cathode material" in reference to a intermediate or final product? The Examiner suggest the following amendment: “"a sodium battery, comprising a positive electrode pole piece comprising a sodium-ion cathode material."’
Regarding Claim 11 line 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention’ See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 12 line 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 11-12 are additionally rejection based on their dependence on Claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2020, 3, 933−942) in view of Liu et al. (Journal of Alloys and Compounds 849 (2020) 156441) with evidence from Rui al. (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021, 31, 2009458).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu teaches with the following modification in view of Liu:
A sodium-ion cathode material, comprising: a matrix; wherein the matrix has a composition represented by formula I: Na1-x[NiyMnzMu]TivO2 formula I, where: -0.4≤x≤0.4, 0.2≤y≤0.6, 0.1≤z≤0.5, 0.1≤u≤0.5, 0≤v≤0.02, y+z+u+v=1; and M is selected from at least one of Fe, Mg, Al, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Co, Y, V, Sc, Cr, W, La, Mo, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, and Ta (An O3-type NaMn0.33Fe0.33Ni0.33O2 cathode material by integrating TiO2 coating and Ti4+ doping (referred to as TiO2@MFN), see Abstract. The TiO2@MFN material has the compositional amount as measure by ICP shown in Table S3 as reproduced below. The composition of TiO2@MFN is within the claimed formula ranges within rounding. Assuming arguendo that the Ti amount is found to lie outside of the claimed range of 0≤v≤0.02, it is the Examiner’s position that the value is so mathematically close to the claimed end point that one skilled in the art would expect it to have the same properties as the claimed range thus providing a prima facie case of obviousness absent a showing of any secondary considerations (See MPEP 2144.05 I).);
Yu does not teach:
and a coating layer coated on the matrix;
and wherein the coating layer has a composition represented by formula II: Na2-βTi6-αM′αO13 formula II, where: 0≤α<0.6, -2≤β<1; and M′ is selected from at least one of Li, Mg, Fe, Al, Ga, In, Ge, Y, Sc, and Zr.
To solve the same problem of providing a transition metal oxide cathode material for a sodium battery, Liu teaches that coating transition metal oxide cathode material with Na2Ti6O13, see Abstract. Liu further teaches the Na2Ti6O13 coating improves air stability, see Abstract. ¶.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a Na2Ti6O13 coating on the TiO2@MFN cathode material of Yu to enhance air stability of the cathode material.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Yu teaches or in the alternative renders obvious the following limitation:
wherein: in formula I, -0.2≤x≤0.4, 0.2≤y≤0.5, 0.2≤z≤0.5, 0.2≤u≤0.5, 0.01≤v≤0.02, y+z+u+v=1; and M is selected from at least one of Fe, Cu, Nb, Co, V, and Cr (TiO2@MFN material has the compositional amount as measure by ICP shown in Table S3 as reproduced above. The composition of TiO2@MFN is within the claimed formula ranges within rounding. Assuming arguendo that the Ti amount is found to lie outside of the claimed range of 0≤v≤0.02, it is the Examiner’s position that the value is so mathematically close to the claimed end point that one skilled in the art would expect it to have the same properties as the claimed range thus providing a prima facie case of obviousness absent a showing of any secondary considerations (See MPEP 2144.05 I).);
and/or in formula II, 0<α<0.5, -2≤β<1; and M′ is selected from at least one of Mg, Fe, Al, Y and Zr (optional limitation).
Regarding Claim 3, Yu teaches:
wherein: in a direction from a center of the matrix to a surface of the matrix, element Ti is distributed in a gradient, and preferably, in an increasing gradient (The Ti4+ exists in the bulk cathode material (i.e., as a dopant) and decreases from the surface to the bulk, see Pg936/C(right)/1st ¶);
and/or in the direction from the center of the matrix to the surface of the matrix, element Ti is increased with a rate ranging from 0.001 mol%/μm to 0.3 mol%/μm, and preferably, from 0.001 mol%/μm to 0.2 mol%/μm (optional limitation).
Regarding Claim 4,Yu in view of Liu teaches:
wherein: a weight ratio of the matrix to the coating layer is 100: (0.01 to 5), and preferably, 100: (0.05 to 3) (Liu teaches providing the Na2Ti6O13 coating at a weight percent of 1-5% which is within the claimed range, see Pg2/Section 2.1);
and/or the coating layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 200 nm, and preferably, from 10 nm to 100 nm (optional limitation);
and/or the cathode material has an average particle size D50 ranging from 2 µm to 30 µm, and preferably, from 4 µm to 12 µm (optional limitation).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yu is silent toward:
wherein: the cathode material has an ionic conductivity ranging from 10-4 S/cm to 10-3 S/cm, and preferably, from 5×10-4 S/cm to 10-3 S/cm;
and/or the cathode material has an electronic conductivity ranging from 10-7 S/cm to 10-6 S/cm, and preferably, from 5×10-7 S/cm to 10-6 S/cm.
However, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 10, Yu teaches with the following modification in view of Liu:
A sodium-ion battery, comprising a positive electrode pole piece prepared by a sodium-ion cathode material (a sodium coin cell is including a cathode produced with a sodium ion cathode material, see Pg935/C(left)/Electrochemical Test Section),
a sodium-ion cathode material, comprising: a matrix; wherein the matrix has a composition represented by formula I: Na1-x[NiyMnzMu]TivO2 formula I, where: -0.4≤x≤0.4, 0.2≤y≤0.6, 0.1≤z≤0.5, 0.1≤u≤0.5, 0≤v≤0.02, y+z+u+v=1; and M is selected from at least one of Fe, Mg, Al, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Co, Y, V, Sc, Cr, W, La, Mo, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, and Ta (An O3-type NaMn0.33Fe0.33Ni0.33O2 cathode material by integrating TiO2 coating and Ti4+ doping (referred to as TiO2@MFN), see Abstract. The TiO2@MFN material has the compositional amount as measure by ICP shown in Table S3 as reproduced below. The composition of TiO2@MFN is within the claimed formula ranges within rounding. Assuming arguendo that the Ti amount is found to lie outside of the claimed range of 0≤v≤0.02, it is the Examiner’s position that the value is so mathematically close to the claimed end point that one skilled in the art would expect it to have the same properties as the claimed range thus providing a prima facie case of obviousness absent a showing of any secondary considerations (See MPEP 2144.05 I).);
Yu does not teach:
and a coating layer coated on the matrix;
and wherein the coating layer has a composition represented by formula II: Na2-βTi6-αM′αO13 formula II, where: 0≤α<0.6, -2≤β<1; and M′ is selected from at least one of Li, Mg, Fe, Al, Ga, In, Ge, Y, Sc, and Zr.
To solve the same problem of providing a transition metal oxide cathode material for a sodium battery, Liu teaches that coating transition metal oxide cathode material with Na2Ti6O13, see Abstract. Liu further teaches the Na2Ti6O13 coating improves air stability, see Abstract. ¶.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a Na2Ti6O13 coating on the TiO2@MFN cathode material of Yu to enhance air stability of the cathode material.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Yu teaches:
wherein: subsequent to 80 cycles at 25°C, the sodium-ion battery has a cycle retention rate of ≥75%, and preferably, from 90% to 100% (Yu shows in annotated Fig. 6g that the TiO2@MFN based cathode has a cycle retention of approximately 77% (which is within the claimed range)after 80 cycles. Further, Liu teaches the Na2Ti6O13 coating enhances the cycle retention, see text of Pg4 and Fig. 4d. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the modified material of Yu has a cycle retention rate of greater than 75%. Yu is silent to heating or cooling the cell during cycling therefore it is reasonable to conclude the testing was done at ambient/room temperature which, as evidence by Rui, is approximately 25°C, see Rui-Pg2009458/C(right)/1st ¶.)
PNG
media_image2.png
711
976
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2020, 3, 933−942) in view of Liu et al. (Journal of Alloys and Compounds 849 (2020) 156441) as applied to Claim 10 above and in further view of Yu et al. (Journal of Power Sources 422 (2019) 1–8 referred to as Yu-2).
Regarding Claim 12, Yu is silent toward:
wherein: in a 4.2V charging state, the positive electrode pole piece has a Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) exothermic temperature of ≥280°C, and preferably, from 290℃ to 350°C.
To solve the same problem of providing a titanium doped sodium metal oxide cathode material, Yu-2 teaches that Ti4+ doping improves thermal stability of the cathode under high charging states, see Pg7/C(left)/2nd ¶. Yu-2 further teaches “the thermal properties of cathode materials are among the most critical factors for the practical application of SIBs,” (sodium ion batteries) with a desired outcome of higher thermal stability measured by a higher DSC under charging conditions, see Pg7/C(left)/2nd ¶.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the titanium based coating a doping of modified Yu to increase the thermal stability as taught by Yu-2 in order to provide cathode materials suitable for practical application of sodium ion batteries.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “the positive electrode pole piece has a Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) exothermic temperature of ≥280°C,” without undue experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights