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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 12, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are pending in the application. Claim 11 stands withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140065492 A1 (Komaba ‘492) in view of US 20040062991 A1 (Fukui ‘991).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 3, Komaba ‘492 teaches a sodium ion secondary cell electrode (a sodium secondary battery electrode; [0127]) containing an electrode active material powder (the electrode contains Sn powder as the electrode active material; [0127]) and an organic binder (an electrode-forming agent acting as a binder; [0033] – [0038]); wherein the electrode active material powder is at least one selected from graphite, hard carbon, Sn, and Bi (Sn powder as the electrode active material; [0127]), and the organic binder is at least one selected from polyacrylic acid, sodium polyacrylate, sodium methyl cellulose, and polyethylene oxide (as the electrode-forming agent, polya(acrylic acid) (PAA) or poly(sodium acrylate) (PAANa) is preferred; [0033] – [0038]).
Komaba ‘492 does not explicitly disclose that the sodium ion secondary cell electrode emits fluorescence in a Raman spectrometry with a wavelength of 532 nm, has a rate of mass reduction of 5% or less, and is free from appearance of an exothermic peak and an endothermic peak in DTA measurement, when the material is thermally treated in a range of the decomposition temperature of the organic binder plus 50 °C to plus 100 °C. In particular, Komaba ‘492 is silent regarding the binder not being completely decomposed after heat treatment for sintering at a certain temperature.
Fukui ‘991 discloses a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery obtained by sintering an active material layer on a current collector under a non-oxidizing atmosphere after the active material layer including primary particles of an active material containing silicon (Si; wherein silicon corresponds to one of the electrode active materials disclosed in paragraph [0014] of the instant specification) and a binder is formed on an electrically conductive metal foil as a current collector (abstract of Fukui ‘991). An object of Fukui’ 991 is to provide a negative electrode for a battery having excellent charge and discharge cycle characteristics ([0005]).
The binder used in Fukui ‘991 preferably does not completely decompose after the heat treatment for sintering ([0027] of Fukui ‘991). If the binder remains after the heat treatment and is not decomposed, the binding ability of the binder increases adhesion between particles of the active material and between the active material and the current collector ([0027] of Fukui ‘991). Even if the volume of the particles of the active material increases or decreases during occluding and releasing of lithium ions, peeling of the active material layer form the current collector can be prevented and excellent charge and discharge characteristics can be obtained ([0027]). As the binder, polyimide is preferred ([0028] – [0029] of Fukui ‘991; corresponding to the one of the preferred organic binders disclosed in paragraph [0013] of the instant specification). It is preferred that the heat treatment for sintering is done at a temperature of not greater than 600 °C, which does not cause complete decomposition of polyimide ([0030] of Fukui ‘991).
In paragraph [0018] of the instant specification, when the material containing the electrode active material and the organic binder is fired in a range from a decomposition temperature of the organic binder minus 50 °C to plus 250 °C, the organic binder is modified to cause a structural change and partly remains in the electrode without being fully burned off. Further, in paragraph [0029] of the instant specification, neither exothermic peak nor endothermic peak appears in a DTA measurement in a range from the decomposition temperature of the organic binder to the decomposition temperature of the organic binder plus 100 °C, because the organic binder is modified by firing to cause a structural change. In paragraph [0065] of the instant specification, when the electrode was thermally treated at a decomposition temperature of the organic binder plus 50°C, the rate of mass reduction was less than 0.1%.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, for the sodium ion secondary cell electrode containing an electrode active material powder and an organic binder, as taught by Komaba ‘492 in view of Fukui ‘991, to emit fluorescence in a Raman spectrometry with a wavelength of 532 nm, have a rate of mass reduction of 5% or less, and be free from appearance of an exothermic peak and an endothermic peak in DTA measurement, when the material is thermally treated in a range of the decomposition temperature of the organic binder plus 50 °C to plus 100 °C, when heat treatment for sintering is done at a temperature that does not cause complete decomposition of the binder, because the binding ability of the binder increases adhesion between particles of the active material and between the active material and the current collector, resulting in a negative electrode having excellent charge and discharge cycle characteristics.
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 § 2114 I.).
Regarding claim 4, Komaba ‘492 teaches the sodium ion secondary cell electrode according to claim 1, being made of a sintered body of a material containing the electrode active material powder and the organic binder (in the preparation of the negative electrode, the silicon powder was added to N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solution containing polyimide as the binder to prepare a slurry, wherein the slurry was coated on one surface of an electrolytic copper foil, and a disc cut out from the coated copper foil was sintered to prepare the negative electrode, i.e., a sintered body; [0043] - [0046] of Fukui ‘991).
Regarding claim 5, Komaba ‘492 teaches the sodium ion secondary cell electrode according to claim 1, containing the organic binder in an amount of 0.1 to 30% by mass (an amount of the binder in the binder is preferably at least 5% based on the total weight of the active material layer and preferably not greater than 50 weight % of the total weight of the layer; [0031] of Fukui ‘991; in the preparation of the negative electrode of experiment 1, 18.2 weight parts of polyimide as binder was used; [0044] of Fukui ‘991).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 13, Komaba ‘492 teaches the sodium ion secondary cell electrode according to claim 1, wherein the organic binder is at least one selected from polyacrylic acid and sodium polyacrylate (as the electrode-forming agent, polya(acrylic acid) (PAA) or poly(sodium acrylate) (PAANa) is preferred; [0033] – [0038] of Komaba ‘492).
Claims 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140065492 A1 (Komaba ‘492) in view of US 20040062991 A1 (Fukui ‘991), and further in view of US 20180204686 A1 (Yamauchi ‘686).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 10, Komaba ‘492 teaches the sodium ion secondary cell electrode according to claim 1, but does not disclose a solid electrolyte powder, wherein the solid electrolyte powder is a sodium ion-conductive crystal powder, and wherein the sodium ion-conductive solid electrolyte powder is at least one material selected from β-alumina, β”-alumina, and NASICON crystals.
Yamauchi ‘686 discloses a negative-electrode active material for a power storage device that is suitable for use in a sodium-ion secondary battery ([0016]). The secondary battery may further include a solid electrolyte, wherein solid electrolytes are preferred because of their wide potential windows ([0011] & [0072]). As the solid electrolyte, a sodium-ion conductive solid electrolyte may be prepared ([0105]). Examples of the solid electrolyte include lithium β-alumina, lithium β”-alumina ([0071]), and a solid electrolyte sheet made of NASICON crystal ([0112]). For example, a solid electrolyte powder may be prepared by grinding an obtained solid electrolyte sheet from Li2O-stabilized β" alumina ([0105] - [0113]). The negative-electrode active material precursor powder and the solid electrolyte powder obtained may be used to produce a solid-state sodium-ion secondary battery ([0114] – [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the sodium ion secondary cell electrode, as taught by Komaba ‘492, to further contain a solid electrolyte powder, wherein the solid electrolyte powder is a sodium ion-conductive crystal powder, and the sodium ion-conductive solid electrolyte powder is at least one material selected from β-alumina, β”-alumina, and NASICON crystals, as suggested by Yamauchi ‘686, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140065492 A1 (Komaba ‘492) in view of US 20040062991 A1 (Fukui ‘991), and further in view of US 20150318580 A1 (Fukunaga ‘580).
Regarding claim 12, Komaba ‘492 teaches the sodium ion secondary cell electrode according to claim 1, wherein the sodium secondary battery electrode may further have a carbonaceous material in addition to the Sn powder as the electrode active material ([0039] of Komaba ‘492). The carbonaceous material is preferably hard carbon ([0041] of Komaba ‘492).
Komaba ‘492 does not disclose that the electrode active material powder is only hard carbon.
Fukunaga ‘580 discloses in the case of a sodium ion secondary battery, the material for the negative-electrode active material may be hard carbon ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select hard carbon as the electrode active material, as suggested by Fukunaga ’580, of the sodium ion secondary cell electrode, as taught by Komaba ‘492, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 14, Komaba ‘492 teaches the sodium secondary cell electrode according to claim 1, wherein the sodium secondary battery electrode may further have a carbonaceous material in addition to the Sn powder as the electrode active material ([0039] of Komaba ‘492). The carbonaceous material is preferably hard carbon ([0041] of Komaba ‘492). The electrode-forming agent, corresponding to the organic binder, may be polya(acrylic acid) (PAA) or poly(sodium acrylate) (PAANa) ([0033] – [0038]).
Komaba ‘492 does not disclose that the electrode active material powder is only hard carbon.
Fukunaga ‘580 discloses in the case of a sodium ion secondary battery, the material for the negative-electrode active material may be hard carbon ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select hard carbon as the electrode active material, as suggested by Fukunaga ’580, of the sodium ion secondary cell electrode, as taught by Komaba ‘492, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 12, 2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant amended claims 1-3 to omit titanium oxide as the electrode active material powder, and omit polyvinylidene fluoride and styrene-butadiene rubber as the organic binder. Thus, Applicant asserts that Yamauchi fails to disclose the electrode active material powders now recited in Applicant’s claim 1-3. Furthermore, none of the organic binders disclosed by Yamauchi correspond to the organic binders now recited in Applicant’s claims 1-3. Applicant’s assertion is persuasive. Therefore, a new rejection of record is presented above in this Office action citing to US 20140065492 A1 (Komaba ‘492 – previously cited) as the primary reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 on 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725