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 .
SODIUM-ION BATTERIES
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 17/413,046 Art Unit: 1727 February 2, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 25, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-16 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 15-16 are newly added. Claims 7-8 have been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no direct support for wherein the electrode includes one or more organo-carbonate based solvents. In addition, Applicant has not specifically pointed out where support can be found. Therefore, the claim contains new matter.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electrode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is unclear if one of the electrodes or the electrolyte comprises the claimed organo-based carbonate solvent because the original disclosure only provides support for the electrolyte comprises an organo-based carbonate solvent. Therefore, for the purpsoes of compact prosecution the Examiner will construe the claim to read on an electrolyte comprising an organo-based carbonate solvent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Treacher and Nagayama on Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8 and 12-13 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Treacher, Nagayama and Lu on Claims 9-10 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Treacher, Nagayama and Numata on claims 11 and 14 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, 12-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacher et al. (WO 2017/073056 A1; as found in IDS dated 06/11/2021) in view of Chatillon et al. (US 2018/0316044 A1).
As to Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 13 and 16, Treacher discloses a sodium-ion battery comprising a cell stack, wherein each cell comprises: a positive electrode active material containing NaNi0.33Mn0.33Mg0.67Ti0.67O2; a negative electrode comprising hard carbon (disordered carbon-containing material); an electrolyte comprising NaPF6; (Abstract, Fig. 10 and paragraphs [0024, 0047 and 0058]). Treacher further recognizes the mass and the mass ratio of the active materials as a result-effective variable, wherein controlling the individual masses and the mass ratio between the active materials leads to a method of passive control over maximum and minimum voltages reached by the electrodes in the cycling phase and this improvements in cell characteristics (paragraphs [0013 and 0058]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. In addition, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the mass ratios of the active materials to be within the claimed range because Treacher teaches that battery cell characteristics can be improved (paragraph [0013]). Treacher does not specifically disclose the claimed thickness of the negative active material.
However, Chatillon teaches of a sodium-ion battery wherein the anode comprises hard carbon as an active material, the anode has a thickness of 100 microns, and wherein the anode current collector has a thickness of 20 microns (Abstract and paragraphs [0094-0095]). Therefore, the thickness of the hard carbon anode active material is 80 microns. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05, I. In addition, the courts have held that the limitations relating to the size of the active material layer is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the anode to read on the claims because Chatillon teaches that such an electrode is suitable for a sodium-ion battery that has an increase in cycles and better cycling performance (paragraphs [0111]).
As to Claim 4, Treacher recognizes the mass and the mass ratio of the active materials as a result-effective variable, wherein controlling the individual masses and the mass ratio between the active materials leads to a method of passive control over maximum and minimum voltages reached by the electrodes int eh cycling phase and this improvements in cell characteristics (paragraphs [0013 and 0058]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. In addition, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the mass ratios of the active materials to be within the claimed range because Treacher teaches that battery cell characteristics can be improved (paragraph [0013]).
As to Claim 12, Treacher discloses a method of making a sodium-ion battery, comprising: assembling a battery as described in the rejection of claim 1 above; and cycling the battery to a first voltage (Abstract and paragraphs [0024, 0047 and 0058]). Treacher does not specifically disclose the claimed thickness of the negative active material.
However, Chatillon teaches of a sodium-ion battery wherein the anode comprises hard carbon as an active material, the anode has a thickness of 100 microns, and wherein the anode current collector has a thickness of 20 microns (Abstract and paragraphs [0094-0095]). Therefore, the thickness of the hard carbon anode active material is 80 microns. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05, I. In addition, the courts have held that the limitations relating to the size of the active material layer is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the anode to read on the claims because Chatillon teaches that such an electrode is suitable for a sodium-ion battery that has an increase in cycles and better cycling performance (paragraphs [0111]).
As to Claim 15, Treacher discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises an organo-based carbonate solvent (paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacher et al. (WO 2017/073056 A1; as found in IDS dated 06/11/2021) in view of Chatillon et al. (US 2018/0316044 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 12-13 and 15-16 above and in further view of Lu et al. (US 2015/0357646 A1).
As to Claims 9-10, modified Treacher does not specifically disclose the claimed anode material.
However, Lu teaches of a sodium-ion battery comprising: a negative electrode material that can comprise hard carbon and phosphorus and metals (paragraph [0013]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of modified Treacher to comprise a composite anode of hard carbon and phosphorus because Lu teaches that the composite electrode is suitable of use in a sodium-ion battery with improved stability (paragraph [0042]). In addition, Lu recognizes that hard carbon and a composite comprising the claimed combinations are functionally equivalent for use in an anode for a sodium-ion battery and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the claimed composites for the hard carbon of modified Treacher, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, B.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treacher et al. (WO 2017/073056 A1; as found in IDS dated 06/11/2021) in view of Chatillon et al. (US 2018/0316044 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 12-13 and 15-16 above and in further view of Numata et al. (US 2015/0229004 A1).
As to Claim 11, modified Treacher does not specifically disclose the claimed specific surface area.
However, Numata teaches of a sodium-ion battery comprising a hard carbon anode material with a specific surface area of 6 m2/g (paragraphs [0046 and 0082]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of modified Treacher to have a specific surface area of 6 m2/g because Numata teaches that excellent cycle characteristics can be achieved (paragraph [0028]). Furthermore, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentrations will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
As to Claim 14, Treacher discloses wherein the electrode layers are made from homogeneous slurries and coated onto collectors with a desired height by doctor blade method or reel-to-reel coater (reads on a uniform coating) (paragraphs [0037-0042]). Modified Treacher does not specifically disclose the claimed specific surface area.
However, Numata teaches of a sodium-ion battery comprising a hard carbon anode material with a specific surface area of 6 m2/g (paragraphs [0046 and 0082]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of modified Treacher to have a specific surface area of 6 m2/g because Numata teaches that excellent cycle characteristics can be achieved (paragraph [0028]). Furthermore, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentrations will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Mach 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) The claimed invention and the Declaration provide for unexpected and significant results (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) The results are not persuasive for at least the reasons given herein. The results are not fully commensurate in scope with the claims at least because the results are shown for very specific cathode materials and anode materials (Table 1). In addition, there is no data or examples that use a positive active material wherein A is potassium or lithium; or for all the metals that fall under claimed M1-M5; no data/examples that covers the lower limit (25 gsm) of the anode; the upper limit of the claimed ratio of mass of positive active material to mass of the negative active material; or the upper limit (80 microns) of the claimed thickness. Therefore, there is no reasoning or evidence to support that all of the other claimed combinations will provide the same results
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727