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 .
This application is in response to an amendment filed on 05/15/2026.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application and are under examination. Applicant has amended claims 2, 4, 14, 16-17 and 19-20.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 16, 17 are 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.
Claim 2 recites “co-processing the sintered sodium-ion material under simultaneous heat and pressure to form: (a) a sodium-ion conductive solid electrolyte membrane; (b) a beta-alumina composite structure; or (c) a composite cathode structure, wherein the co-processing generates interfacial clean grain-boundary regions between adjacent phases” is not disclosed in the specification. However applicant does disclose in the specification “some embodiments can involve forming a coherently bonded solid state battery by co- processing the sintered sodium-ion material into a solid electrolyte membrane and an electrode. As an exemplary embodiment, the solid-state battery can be comprised of at least three layers; a solid cathode, a solid electrolyte membrane, and a solid anode. In the case of a solid-state battery comprised of solid layers, good electrochemical performance is contingent on effective charge transfer across the interfacial layers. Thus, a high degree of contact between the solid layers is desirable, as this facilitates efficient charge transfer. The disclosed cold sintering process can be applied to all three layers simultaneously, thereby forming a dense membrane which is bonded to the solid electrode layers. This would be impossible with conventional solid- state sintering owing to the high temperatures which would degrade the solid electrodes during sintering (see paragraph 0055). Applicant further discloses [0008] co-processing of the solid electrolyte membrane with solid electrodes in order to form coherently bonded solid-state batteries. [0009] An exemplary method for fabricating a sintered sodium-ion material involves mixing a parent phase sodium-ion compound with a secondary transient phase to form a powder mixture. The method involves applying pressure and heat above a melting point or boiling point of the secondary transient phase to drive dissolution at particle contacts and subsequent precipitation at newly formed grain boundaries. The method involves generating a sintered sodium-ion material with > 90% relative density. [0010] In some embodiments, method involves forming a solid electrolyte membrane using the sintered sodium-ion material. In some embodiments, method involves forming a composite of- alumina using the sintered sodium-ion material. In some embodiments, method involves forming a composite cathode using the sintered sodium-ion material. [0011] In some embodiments, the parent phase sodium-ion compound is sodium beta alumina. But no where in the specification discloses co-processing the sintered sodium-ion material under simultaneous heat and pressure to from sodium-ion conductive solid electrolyte membrane in step a and forming structure in step b and c and generating interfacial clean grain boundary regions between adjacent phases. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites “x ranges from 0.5 to 0.8” which is not supported in the specifications. Specification does disclose x is 0.51 and/or x-0.67 (see paragraphs 0028, 0063) but no where in the specification discloses a range from 0.5 to 0.8. Clarification is requested.
Claim 16 recites annealing removes water, carbonate-containing species or transient reaction products generated during pressure-assisted densification which is not supported in the specification. However Specification does disclose annealing removes water, carbonate-containing species (see paragraphs 0024, 0053) but nowhere in the specification discloses annealing removes water, carbonate-containing species or transient reaction products generated during pressure-assisted densification. Clarification is requested.
Claim 17 recites co-processing the sintered sodium-ion material with at least one electrode material under simultaneous heat and pressure to form an interfacially bonded solid-state sodium-ion battery structure comprising : (a) a sodium-ion conductive electrolyte region; and (b) an electrode region, wherein the electrolyte region and electrode region are joined through a coherently bonded ceramic interface formed during pressure-assisted densification which is not supported in the specification. Although specification does disclose forming a coherently bonded solid state battery by co- processing the sintered sodium-ion material into a solid electrolyte membrane and an electrode. As an exemplary embodiment, the solid-state battery can be comprised of at least three layers; a solid cathode, a solid electrolyte membrane, and a solid anode. In the case of a solid-state battery comprised of solid layers, good electrochemical performance is contingent on effective charge transfer across the interfacial layers (see paragraph 0055). Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Randall et al (US PGPUB No.: 20170088471) in view of Eddy et al (US Patent No.: 4052538 A).
Regarding clam 1, Randall discloses a method for preparing sintered material comprising combining at least one inorganic compound in particle form (i.e., ceramic-in powder form, paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036) and at least one other substance with a solvent (as transient solvent, paragraphs 0034) that can partially solubilize to form a mixture; applying pressure and heat to the mixture to above the boiling point of the solvent to drive dissolution at particle contacts and precipitation at newly formed grain boundaries and generating a sintered material with >90% relative density (paragraphs 0031-0039, see examples).
Randall discloses inorganic compound (i.e., ceramic) which contains sodium compound such as sodium carbonate (see examples) and further discloses obtaining sintered material with >90% relative density as disclosed above but does not explicitly disclose or suggest sodium-ion compound and generating sintered sodium ion material.
However, Eddy discloses sintered sodium beta alumina article (i.e., sintered sodium ion material) comprising sodium beta alumina as ceramic material and having density of 95-100% where a quantity of powder is placed in a suitable mold and pressed in sodium-sulfur battery and then is heated to obtain a sodium beta alumina article (Col.1 lines 3-5, 19-25, Col.2 lines 57-68 to Col.3 lines 1-11)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sodium beta alumina of Eddy as inorganic compound of Randall and utilizing sintered sodium ion material of Eddy as sintered material of Randall which provides no organic materials use, not lengthy milling and no contaminates into the beta-alumina product as taught by Eddy (Col.2 lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 2, Alternatively, Eddy further teaches forming a composite of beta alumina using the sintered sodium beta alumina (i.e. sodium ion compound or material, se Eddy-abstract, Eddy- col.1 lines 21-25, Eddy-col.7 lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 3, Eddy discloses forming a composite of beta alumina using the sintered sodium beta alumina (i.e. sodium ion compound or material, abstract, col.1 lines 21-25, col.7 lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 5, Eddy discloses sodium beta alumina as solid materials (Col.6 lines 61-68 to Col.7 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Randall discloses less than 30% by weight of solvent can be mixed (paragraphs 0036-0039, reads on 10 wt.% of secondary transient phase). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 claims 7-8, Randall discloses solvent can be alcohol (i.e., ethanol, reads on non-aqueous transient solvent and hydroxide-based transient solvent, paragraphs 0034, 0036-0039).
Regarding claim 9, Randall discloses heat applied at about below 250 C (paragraphs 0066). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 10, Randall discloses less than 180 minutes (reads on less than three hours, paragraph 0066). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 11, Randall discloses pressure applied of 30 MPa to 2000 MPa (paragraph 033). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 12, Randall discloses applying pressure and heat (paragraph 0028) which is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art that both are applied at the same time unless otherwise unexpected results are shown by applicant.
Regarding claims 13-14, Eddy discloses the heating to elevated temperature such as above about 1100 C (col.2 lines 55-68). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 15, Randall in view of Eddy discloses substantially similar process as disclosed above in claim 1 and further Randall discloses to enhance electrical conductivity (paragraphs 0004, 0068, 0081, 0114) therefore it would be obvious that this would result in reversing structural changes occurring during cold sintering by annealing sintered composite such as sodium ion material.
Regarding claim 16, Randall discloses removing solvent to form sintered material and/or composite (i.e., water as solvent, Randall-paragraphs 0008, 0028-0032).
Eddy discloses heating to removing water and salt (Col.2 lines 61-65).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Randall et al (US PGPUB No.: 20170088471) in view of Eddy et al (US Patent No.: 4052538 A) and in further view of Werner (DE102012013921, machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Randall in view of Eddy discloses a method for fabricating sintered sodium ion material as disclosed above and Randall teaching lithium-ion battery having anode and cathode and co-processing (see Randall-paragraphs 0046, 0068) while Eddy disclosing sodium-sulfur battery but does not disclose forming a coherently bonded solid state sodium-ion battery structure comprising solid electrolyte membrane and electrode.
However, Werner discloses sodium-ion conductive solid electrolyte membrane consist of sintered layer made of sodium beta aluminate and electrode (negative and positive electrodes) and further discloses forming firmed bond (i.e., coherently bonded) with sintered material (paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0015, 0019, 0031-0034, 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the forming coherently bonded solid electrolyte membrane and electrode of Werner with process of Randall and Eddy which provides lack of tensile strength compensated by high-tensile reinforcements without adversely affecting the ion conductivity as taught by Werner (paragraph 0016) .
9. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Werner (DE102012013921, machine translation) in view of Eddy et al (US Patent No.: 4052538 A).
Regarding claims 18-19, Werner discloses solid state sodium-ion electrolyte membrane comprising sintered sodium ion material comprising of sodium beta aluminate (paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0015, 0019, 0032, 0034) but does not disclose >90% relative density.
However, Eddy discloses sintered sodium beta alumina article (i.e., sintered sodium ion material) comprising sodium beta alumina as ceramic material and having density of 95-100% (Col.1 lines 3-5, 19-25, Col.2 lines 57-68 to Col.3 lines 1-11)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the sintered sodium ion material with >90% density of Eddy with Werner which provides no organic materials use, not lengthy milling and no contaminates into the beta-alumina product as taught by Eddy (Col.2 lines 6-10).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks on pages 5-9, filed on 05/15/2026 with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3 and 5-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Randall et al (US PGPUB No.: 20170088471) in view of Eddy et al (US Patent No.: 4052538 A), rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Randall et al (US PGPUB No.: 20170088471) in view of Eddy et al (US Patent No.: 4052538 A) and in further view of Werner (DE102012013921, machine translation) and rejection of claims 18-19 over Werner (DE102012013921, machine translation) in view of Eddy et al (US Patent No.: 4052538 A) are not persuasive and therefore the rejections have been maintained.
Applicant mainly argues that Randall in view of Eddy do not teach sodium-ion conducting ceramics as recited n claims 1-2 but however claim 1 does not discloses conductive ceramics, preservation of sodium ion conductivity, recovery of ionic transport after transient phase processing or low temperature fabrication of sodium state battery architectures and further as recited in the rejection set forth above, Eddy discloses sintered sodium beta alumina article (i.e., sintered sodium ion material) comprising sodium beta alumina as ceramic material and having density of 95-100% where a quantity of powder is placed in a suitable mold and pressed in sodium-sulfur battery and then is heated to obtain a sodium beta alumina article (Col.1 lines 3-5, 19-25, Col.2 lines 57-68 to Col.3 lines 1-11). Further solid electrolyte membrane, composite of cathode structure are optional as recited in claim 2 because of the phrase “or”, only one the steps a-c is required and not all a-c is required. Therefore applicant argument is moot as Eddy discloses step b which is beta alumina. Therefore combination of the Randall and Eddy discloses presently claimed invention. If applicant believes that Randall in view of Eddy does not disclose presently claimed invention then applicant needs to show unexpected results with side by side comparison.
In addition, it is noted that while Randall and Eddy does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Randall is used as teaching reference, namely for a method for preparing sintered material comprising combining at least one inorganic compound (includes sodium compound such as sodium carbonate, see examples) in particle form (i.e., ceramic-in powder form, paragraphs 0029-0030, 0036) and at least one other substance with a solvent (as transient solvent, paragraphs 0034) that can partially solubilize to form a mixture; applying pressure and heat to the mixture to above the boiling point of the solvent to drive dissolution at particle contacts and precipitation at newly formed grain boundaries and generating a sintered material with >90% relative density (paragraphs 0031-0039, see examples) and Eddy is used s teaching reference, sintered sodium beta alumina article (i.e., sintered sodium ion material) comprising sodium beta alumina as ceramic material and having density of 95-100% where a quantity of powder is placed in a suitable mold and pressed in sodium-sulfur battery and then is heated to obtain a sodium beta alumina article (Col.1 lines 3-5, 19-25, Col.2 lines 57-68 to Col.3 lines 1-11) and is used for a composite of beta alumina using the sintered sodium beta alumina (i.e. sodium ion compound or material, se Eddy-abstract, Eddy- col.1 lines 21-25, Eddy-col.7 lines 36-41) in order to provide no organic materials use, not lengthy milling and no contaminates into the beta-alumina product (Col.2 lines 6-10) and Werner is used for sodium-ion conductive solid electrolyte membrane consist of sintered layer made of sodium beta aluminate and electrode (negative and positive electrodes) and further discloses forming firmed bond (i.e., coherently bonded) with sintered material (paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0015, 0019, 0031-0034, 0039) to provide lack of tensile strength compensated by high-tensile reinforcements without adversely affecting ion conductivity and therefore, it is not necessary for these secondary references (Eddy and Werner) to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA1981). Rather these references teach a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference (Randall), discloses the presently claimed invention. Therefore the rejections are maintained.
Further applicant arguments in regards claims 2, 4, 15-17 are not considered as amended claims raises 112(a) issues. Therefore the rejections are maintained until clarification and support from the specification is provided.
Further, applicant amendment overcomes claim objections of record.
Further applicant’s amendment overcomes 112(b) rejections of record but necessitated new 112(a) rejections as set forth above.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SMITA S PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5837. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-W.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached on 5712705713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SMITA S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 07/29/2026
Prosecution Insights