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 June 20, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response filed on April 28, 2026 has been received. Claims 1, 3-4 and 9-16 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
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The claim rejection under 35 USC 112(b) on claim 15 is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Treacher and Chatillon on claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 12-13 and 15-16 are maintained.
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]). The sodium-ion battery of modified Treacher intrinsically comprises the claimed plateau:slope reversible capacity ratio for the negative electrode active material given that the structure and materials used in the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
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]).
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Treacher, Chatillon and Lu on claims 9-10 are maintained.
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.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Treacher, Chatillon and Numata on claims 11 and 14 are maintained.
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 April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Treacher does not disclose controlling the anode GSM, specific thickness of the anode, or achieving the claimed capacity ratio (claim 1).
b) Chatillon does not teach the mass of the anode active material per unit area or the claimed capacity ratio (claim 1).
c) There is no reason to combine the anode thickness of Chatillon into the anode of Treacher (claim 1).
d) The claimed capacity ratio is not inherent because it depends on the claimed anode thickness and anode GSM (claim 1).
e) 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) Treacher recognizes the mass ratio of the anode as a result-effective variable as discussed above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
b) In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The teachings of Treacher and Chatillon teach or render obvious each and every structural element of the claim. The courts have held that the sodium-ion battery of modified Treacher intrinsically comprises the claimed plateau:slope reversible capacity ratio for the negative electrode active material given that the structure and materials used in the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
c) In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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]). Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the teachings of the references cannot be combined.
d) The teachings of Treacher and Chatillon teach or render obvious each and every structural element of the claim. The courts have held that the sodium-ion battery of modified Treacher intrinsically comprises the claimed plateau:slope reversible capacity ratio for the negative electrode active material given that the structure and materials used in the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
e) 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 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. The data “near” the claimed amounts does not provide proper support for the claimed amounts.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights