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 application filed on 03/25/2022.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application and are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to ensure proper antecedent basis and to provide clarity in the claim, it is suggested to mend "the mixture" to “the powder mixture” in claim 6 line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4, 14, 17 and 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 Claim 2, recites “…further comprising: forming a solid electrolyte membrane using the sintered sodium-ion material; forming a composite of β -alumina using the sintered sodium-ion material; or forming a composite cathode using the sintered sodium-ion material.” However, it is unclear how this further limit the method of fabricating a sintered sodium-ion material of claim 1 (emphasis added). The examiner interprets, forming a solid electrolyte membrane using the sintered sodium-ion material; forming a composite of β -alumina using the sintered sodium-ion material; or forming a composite cathode using the sintered sodium-ion material, as intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Randall in view of Eddy disclose a method for fabricating a sintered sodium-ion material as presently claimed, it is clear that the Randall in view of Eddy would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. forming a solid electrolyte membrane using the sintered sodium-ion material; forming a composite of β-alumina using the sintered sodium-ion material; or forming a composite cathode using the sintered sodium-ion material, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 17, recites “…further comprising: forming a coherently bonded solid state battery by co-processing the sintered sodium-ion material into a solid electrolyte membrane and an electrode.” However, it is unclear how this further limit the method of fabricating a sintered sodium-ion material of claim 1 (emphasis added). The examiner interprets forming a coherently bonded solid state battery by co-processing the sintered sodium-ion material into a solid electrolyte membrane and an electrode., as intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Randall in view of Eddy disclose a method for fabricating a sintered sodium-ion material as presently claimed, it is clear that the Randall in view of Eddy would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. forming a coherently bonded solid state battery by co-processing the sintered sodium-ion material into a solid electrolyte membrane and an electrode, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 20, recites phrase “approximate composition” which is not clear asto how the composition can be approximate and what approximate refers to as. It’s also not clear from the applicant specification what is considered as approximate composition. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "within a range from 900 C or 1200 C" renders the claim indefinite because claim includes “within a range from 900 C or…” where upper range is not defined and also not clear from specification. It’s unclear if claim phrase means within a range from 900 to 1200 C or within a range from 900 C and above or below or 1200 C and above or below. For examination purpose, examiner has interpreted as 900 C and below or 1200 C and above. 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.
8. 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).
9. Claim 17 is alternatively 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 battery into 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) .
10. 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).
Conclusion
11. 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 on 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. For more information about the PAIR system.. 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 02/18/2026