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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/4/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found entirely persuasive. Claims 1-20 are pending including new claims 15-20.
This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the subject matter of at least claim 18 is not supported by the specification as filed. Table 1 of the present specification does not match Table 1 of the priority documents as Table 1 contains obvious typographical errors. As shown below, Example 2 should recite Cu not Ti (from CuO) and Example 3 should recite Co not Ti (from CoCO3). Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the phrase "optionally" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, each of claims 1 and 5 recites a broad range/limitation, and each claim also recites “…optionally…” followed by the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the ratio" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 20 should depend from claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., US 2016/0064734 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0333326 A1, and further in view of Qi et al., CN109585795 A.
Regarding at least claim 1, 2, 6-7, 9, 16 and 18, Li teaches an electroactive compound comprising Na(MnwFexCoyNiz)O2, where w, x, y, and z are greater than 0. Further, a sum of w, x, y, and z is equal to 1 (abstract). In one embodiment, x is between or equal to 0.1 to 0.5, between or equal to 0.2 to 0.4, and/or less than or equal to ⅓. Further, in such an embodiment, each of x, y, and z may be between or equal to 0.1 and 0.7, 0.1 and 0.5, or any other appropriate range [0029]. The electroactive compound may be used within a rechargeable alkali metal battery such as a sodium ion battery, for example, within or as an electrode [0044]. The electroactive compound may have a hexagonal crystal structure and an O3 phase [0035-0036]. The Example teaches Na(Mn0.25Fe0.25Co0.25Ni0.25)O2 (MFCN) [0050].
Li teaches the electroactive compound may be used within a rechargeable alkali metal battery such as a sodium ion battery, for example, within or as an electrode [0044]. Li does not explicitly teach specifics of all of the components of the sodium ion battery. However, one of skill in the art would have known that a sodium ion secondary battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator disposed between the positive and negative electrodes, and an electrolyte, as disclosed by Lee.
Lee teaches a sodium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material layer and a current collector [0111]. The positive electrode may be a sodium inorganic compound oxide [0114]. The sodium battery further comprises a negative electrode having a negative electrode active material layer and a current collector [0094]. The negative electrode active material comprises hard carbon (abstract). An average particle diameter of the negative electrode active material may be in a range of about 0.1 micrometer (μm) to about 10 μm, or about 1 to about 3 μm, or about 1.5 μm to about 2.5 μm. When an average particle diameter is within this range, a negative electrode including the negative electrode active material may have excellent current density characteristics per unit volume without an increase in an initial irreversible capacity of the negative electrode active material [0069]. The sodium battery of Lee incudes a separator disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode [0137] and an electrolyte [0150]. One of skill in the art would found it obvious to use the known sodium ion battery components disclosed by Lee for the sodium ion battery comprising the electroactive compound disclosed by Li as sodium ion batteries further comprising a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte are well known to the skilled artisan, as taught by Lee.
Both Li and Lee are silent regarding the particle size of the positive electrode active material particles. However, Qi teaches a mixed phase layered oxide having a formula as shown in the abstract. The mixed phase layered oxide has a hybrid phase of P2 and O3 and a space group R3M. The mixed phase layered oxide has an average particle size of 1mm. The particle size distribution of the material is mainly from 500 nm to 1 mm (see example 7 and example 8).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention because Qi teaches electroactive compounds such as that disclosed by Li and/or Lee are known in the art to have an average particle size of 1 mm and a particle size distribution of from 500 nm to 1 mm, as disclosed by Qi. Furthermore, one of skill would have known that a desired particle size would have been obtained by the grounding or milling of the electroactive compound, as disclosed by Li and/or Lee. One of skill would have found the compacted density of the claimed invention obvious as compounds having the same or similar structure and particle size would have been expected to have to same or similar compacted densities.
The combination of Li, Lee and Qi teach the last four lines of claim 1. Li teaches a sodium battery comprising an O3-phase layered metal oxide of formula 1, Qi teaches electroactive compounds such as that disclosed by Li and/or Lee are known in the art to have an average particle size of 1 mm and a particle size distribution of from 500 nm to 1 mm and Lee teaches a sodium ion battery wherein an average particle diameter of the negative electrode active material may be in a range of about 0.1 micrometer (μm) to about 10 μm, or about 1 to about 3 μm, or about 1.5 μm to about 2.5 μm. Thus, the combination of Li, Lee and Qi satisfies 0.2<A/B<3 (also 0.5<A/B<1 of claim 9).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 20, FIG. 1 shows that the XRD refinement is fit well by using R-3m symmetry and assuming a random mix of the TM ions for the O3-MFCN phase without any impurity peaks. The refined structural parameters are a=2.954 Å, c=15.913 Å, and z=0.233 Å (c/a=5.4). The electron diffraction pattern shown in FIG. 1 was taken perpendicular to the ab plane of pristine MFCN, and shows no superstructure reflection, indicating no long range ordering for transition metal (TM) ions. FIG. 2 presents Fourier transformed (FT) EXAFS spectra on the Mn, Fe, Co, Ni K-edges of pristine MFCN with the least-square fitting results shown in Table 1. The interatomic distances from XRD refinement for TM-O, TM-TM and TM-Na ions are 2.009 Å, 2.954 Å and 3.153 Å, respectively, consistent with the values of 1.985 Å, 2.941 Å and 3.147 Å averaged from the bond lengths listed in Table 1. These results are consistent with a solid solution of the four transition metal ions mixed in the transition metal layer of MFCN. The electroactive compound may be ground or milled to form particles and the particles may be formed into electrodes (e.g., a cathode) [0042-0043].
Regarding claims 10-11, the sodium transition metal oxide compound has an initial specific discharge capacity greater than or equal to 160 mA h/g, 170 mA h/g, 180 mA h/g, 190 mA h/g, or any other appropriate initial specific discharge capacity as measured at a discharge rate of C/10. Similarly, the compound may have an initial specific discharge capacity less than or equal to about 200 mA h/g, 190 mA h/g, 190 mA h/g, or any other appropriate initial specific discharge capacity as measured at a discharge rate of C/10. Combinations of the above ranges may be used including, for example, an initial specific discharge capacity of the compound may be between or equal to 170 mA h/g and 200 mA h/g though other combinations of the above ranges are also contemplated. The specific discharge capacities may be measured, for example, by using the relevant compound as a positive electrode in an electrochemical cell against a Na anode, charging the compound to a maximum of 4.3 V (relative to the potential of Na+/Na, i.e., relative to the potential of Na+ in Na metal, e.g., in a Na metal anode), then discharging the compound to 1.9 V at a rate of at least about C/10. It should be understood that compounds having specific discharge capacities both greater than and less than those noted above are contemplated [0032]. See also [0034]; [0048]; and [0050]-[0054]. See also at least Figure 7 and [0055] of Li. The absence of clear Na ordering in MFCN may be the result of Na site disorder caused by the perturbations of the TM disorder [0056-0059].
Regarding claim 8, Qi teaches electroactive compounds such as that disclosed by Li are known in the art to have an average particle size of 1 mm and a particle size distribution of from 500 nm to 1 mm, as disclosed by Qi. Furthermore, one of skill would have known that a desired particle size would have been obtained by the grounding or milling of the electroactive compound, as disclosed by Li. One of skill would have found the compacted density of the claimed invention obvious as compounds having the same or similar structure and particle size would have been expected to have to same or similar compacted densities.
Regarding claims 12-14, Lee teaches a plurality of battery assemblies may be stacked to form a battery pack, which may be used in a device, a device that uses high output, for example, a laptop computer, a smart phone or an electric vehicle [0167].
Regarding claims 15, 17 and 19, Li teaches, in some cases, other ions may also be present within a crystal structure (e.g., as substituents or impurities), although such ions may not, in some embodiments, substantially alter the crystal structure of the compound. For instance, ions such as lithium, potassium, strontium, barium, aluminum, magnesium, calcium, bismuth, tin, antimony, or other transition metals such as scandium, copper, zinc , yttrium, zirconium, niobium, molybdenum, tungsten, etc. may be found in the crystal structure [0038].
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches and suggests the electroactive compound may further comprise titanium (Ti) as a metal ion cation in combination with transition metals Fe, Mn, Ni and Co (see at least the abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant argues new added claims 17-18 find support at Table 1 (Examples 3-4). Examiner disagrees. Claim 18 does not find support in the specification as filed. See objection to the specification above.
Applicant argues, in view of the claim amendments, the 112 rejections are moot. Examiner disagrees. While the term “optionally” has been removed from claim 3, 4 and 7-10, claims 1 and 5 still recite the term “optionally”, which is indefinite.
Applicant argues You in view of Sakai fails to teach claim 1, as amended. Specifically argued, You does not disclose or suggest M being Zn2+ and/or Co2+. Examiner agrees and the 103 rejection over You in view of Sakai is withdrawn.
Applicant argues Li in view of Sakai, and further in view of Qi, fails to teach claim 1, as amended. Examiner notes the rejection of Li in view of Sakai and further in view of Qi has been withdrawn. Claim 1-20 have been rejected under a new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 over Li, in view of Lee and further in view of Qi. Examiner will address Applicant’s arguments regarding Li as they apply to the current rejection. Specifically argued, Li fails to teach the formula of claim 1. Examiner disagrees and believes Li teaches and suggests formula 1 of claim 1. Li teaches an electroactive compound comprising Na(MnwFexCoyNiz)O2, where w, x, y, and z are greater than 0. Further, a sum of w, x, y, and z is equal to 1 (abstract). In one embodiment, x is between or equal to 0.1 to 0.5, between or equal to 0.2 to 0.4, and/or less than or equal to ⅓. Further, in such an embodiment, each of x, y, and z may be between or equal to 0.1 and 0.7, 0.1 and 0.5, or any other appropriate range [0029]. An Example of Li specifically teaches Na(Mn0.25Fe0.25Co0.25Ni0.25)O2 (MFCN) [0050]. When comparing the Example of Li to formula 1 of the claimed invention, a=1; b=0.25; c=0.25; b+c=0.5; d+e=0.5; and b+c+d+e=1. Furthermore, Li teaches Coy wherein y may be between or equal to 0.1 and 0.7, 0.1 and 0.5, or any other appropriate range [0029]. Thus, Li teaches b of formula 1 may be between or equal to 0.1 and 0.7, 0.1 and 0.5.
Applicant argues Sakai in view of Hwang does not teach claim 1, as amended. Examiner agrees and the rejection over Sakai in view of Hwang has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oh et al., High Capacity O3-type Na[Li0.05(Ni0.25Fe0.25Mn0.5)0.95]O2 Cathode for Sodium Ion Batteries, Chemistry of Materials, Vol. 26, No. 21, pages 6166-6168 teaches a high capacity O3-type Na[Li0.05(Ni0.25Fe0.25Mn0.5)0.95]O2 cathode for sodium ion batteries. See the abstract. See page 6166, left hand column, line 9 to page 6168, left-hand column, line 32. Note all references cited on the PTO-892 can be found in the parent application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights