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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 8, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted April 8, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 4-5 are cancelled, claims 1, 16, and 26 are amended and claims 33-39 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-3 and 6-32 pending for examination.
Applicant has provided evidence in this file (declaration filed January 8, 2026) showing that the claimed invention and the subject matter disclosed in the prior art references He (US11677101B2) and Jang (US 2023/0261320 A1) were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as Global Graphene Group, Inc. not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or the subject matter disclosed in the prior art reference was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement in effect not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As a result, the rejections of claims 1-3, 9, and 21 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent No. US11677101B2 (He) in view of Zheng and Jang (US 2023/0261320 A1) and the rejections of claims 1-3, 6, and 9-21 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Jang (US 2023/0261320 A1) in view of Zheng are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a high-elasticity polymer”. “a high-elasticity polymer” is interpreted as meaning a polymer “that exhibits an elastic deformation of at least 2% when measured under uniaxial tension” in accordance with the specification (pg. 14 lines 4-5).
Claim 5 recites “a lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains”. “a lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains” is interpreted as meaning any amount of cross-linking that leads to the claimed properties of the high-elasticity polymer.
Claim 23: applicant’s explanation that claim 23 is “interpreted as meaning a selection from any of the compounds from any of the groups (a)-(e) is required” is accepted. The claim is interpreted consistent with this explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 22 and 26 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.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "e.g.," renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase (“needle coke”) is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 26, it is unclear how the “intercalation” expansion treatment impacts the structure of the invention. It is unclear what exactly is intercalated and remains in the final structure of the invention and it does not appear that the instant specification provides further details regarding the intercalation process and resulting structure. It is noted that there are multiple recitations of “intercalation”. For example, “combined oxidation-intercalation”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-19, 21, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2018/0301707 A1) in view of Zheng (Zheng, Y., “High-Capacity All-Solid-State Sodium Metal Battery with Hybrid Polymer Electrolytes”. Advanced Energy Materials. 8, 27, 1801885 (2018)).
Regarding claim 1, Pan teaches a rechargeable lithium cell (lithium secondary battery, Pan [13]) comprising an anode (anode, Pan [13]), a cathode (cathode, Pan [13]), and an elastic polymer electrolyte separator disposed between said cathode and said anode (thin layer of a high-elasticity polymer, Pan [13]), wherein the elastic polymer electrolyte separator has a thickness of 1 nm to 10 µm (Pan [13]) and comprises a high-elasticity polymer (Pan [13]). Pan further teaches the high-elasticity polymer containing a lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains having an ether linkage, nitrile-derived linkage, benzo peroxide-derived linkage, ethylene oxide linkage, propylene oxide linkage, vinyl alcohol linkage, cyano-resin linkage, or a combination thereof (Pan [15]).
The thickness range of Pan substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Pan, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Pan further teaches the high-elasticity polymer having a lithium ion conductivity that is no less than 10-6 S/cm at room temperature (Pan [13]).
The ion conductivity range of Pan substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Pan, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Pan teaches the high-elasticity polymer having a fully recoverable tensile strain no less than 2% without additive dispersed therein (Pan [13]).
The fully recoverable tensile strain percentage of Pan substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Pan, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Pan teaches the lightly cross-linked network of polymer chains having a degree of crosslinking that affords an elasticity of the high-elasticity polymer of greater than 10% (Pan [13]).
The elasticity of Pan substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Pan, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Pan does not expressly teach the elastic polymer electrolyte separator being used in a rechargeable sodium cell.
Zheng teaches that “the limited natural reserve of lithium and the associated potential cost increase” has motivated researchers to develop batteries not comprising lithium and “the abundant resources of sodium and its similar chemical properties compared with lithium propelled the efforts of using sodium for future secondary batteries” (Zheng, Introduction first paragraph). Zheng further teaches a rechargeable sodium cell comprising an anode, a cathode, and a solid polymer electrolyte (SSMBs fabricated with the hybrid SPE sandwiched between sodium metal anode and bilayered cathode, Zheng abstract).
Since Zheng teaches that sodium batteries are desirable due to the high abundance and lower cost compared to lithium batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rechargeable cell of Pan to be a rechargeable sodium cell instead of a rechargeable lithium cell in order to fabricate lower cost batteries.
Pan does not explicitly teach the ion conductivity being a sodium ion conductivity, however, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the ion conductivity being a sodium ion conductivity would obviously flow from the rechargeable sodium cell of Pan in view of Zheng. Since Pan teaches that an ion conductivity of no less than 10-6 S/cm is suitable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the high-elasticity polymer to have a sodium ion conductivity within the range disclosed by Pan for the lithium ion conductivity in order to obtain a rechargeable sodium cell with suitable performance.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Modified Pan teaches the elastic polymer electrolyte separator used in a rechargeable sodium cell and the sodium cell being a sodium metal cell with an anode current collector (Pan [41], Pan in view of Zheng motivates the substitution of Li for Na).
Claims 2 and 3 appear to be claiming two different states of a sodium metal anode. The structure of an anode capable of having sodium on an anode current collector is required by claims 2 and 3. A sodium metal cell as taught by modified Pan, would meet the structural limitation of an anode capable of having sodium on an anode current collector.
Regarding claim 6, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan further teaches the elastic polymer electrolyte separator further comprising 0.1% to 50% by weight of a lithium ion-conducting material dispersed in the high-elasticity polymer (Pan [20]).
Pan does not explicitly teach a sodium ion conducting material. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a lithium ion-conducting material for a sodium ion-conductive material in order to use the elastic polymer electrolyte separator in a rechargeable sodium cell.
Regarding claim 7, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1 and 6, as described above. Pan further teaches the ion conducting material comprising lithium perchlorate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium borofluoride, lithium hexafluoroarsenide, lithium trifluoro-metasulfonate, bis-trifluoromethyl sulfonylimide lithium, or lithium trifluoromethanesulfonimide (Pan [95]).
Pan does not explicitly teach a sodium salt. However, as described above for instant claims 1 and 6, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute LiPF6 for NaPF6 in order use a salt suitable for a sodium cell.
Regarding claim 8, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1 and 6, as described above. Pan further teaches the sodium ion-conducting material comprising an inorganic solid electrolyte material (Pan [95]). Since Pan teaches the high elasticity polymer having an ion conductivity no less than 10-6 S/cm, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the inorganic solid electrolyte material has a sodium ion conductivity no less than 10-8 S/cm.
Regarding claim 9, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan further teaches the high-elasticity polymer forming a mixture, blend, or interpenetrating network with poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), Polypropylene oxide (PPO), poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), Poly bis-methoxy ethoxyethoxide-phosphazenex, Polyvinyl chloride, Polydimethylsiloxane, poly(vinylidene fluoride )-hexafluoropropylene (PVDFHFP),a sulfonated derivative thereof, or a combination thereof (Pan [24]).
Regarding claim 10, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan further teaches the high-elasticity polymer comprising 0.1% to 50% by weight (lithium ion conducting additive, Pan [20]) of a lithium ion conducting plastic crystal (lithium salt, Pan [95]).
The percentage by weight range of Pan substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 10. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Pan, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Pan does not explicitly teach a sodium ion-conducting plastic crystal or organic plasticizer. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a lithium salt for a sodium salt in order to use the high-elasticity polymer in a rechargeable sodium cell.
Regarding claim 11, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Pan teaches a high-elasticity polymer comprising crosslinked PVA-CN and LiPF6 that exhibits an ion conductivity of 3.4 x10-4 to 7.2 x10-3 S/cm (Pan Table 1 Sample C2b). As noted above, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Li for Na to obtain a material suitable for use in a sodium cell, thus resulting in a sodium ion conductivity.
Pan does not expressly teach the high-elasticity polymer and the plastic crystal or organic plasticizer forming co-continuous phases.
It is reasonable to presume that the presence of co-continuous phases is inherent to modified Pan. Support for said presumption is found in that Pan and the instant disclosure both disclose dissolving PVA-CN in succinonitrile, followed by adding a salt containing PF6, depositing the solution, and heating (Pan [84]; instant specification Example 2). Therefore, modified Pan is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Pan further teaches the plastic crystal or organic plasticizer comprising a mixture of a lithium salt (LiPF6, Pan [84]) and a sodium ion-conducting organic species (succinonitrile, Pan [84]). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium salt for a sodium salt in order to obtain a separator suitable for use in a sodium cell.
Regarding claim 13, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12, as described above. Claim 13 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a polymerized version. Therefore, modified Pan reads on claim 13, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by modified Pan.
Regarding claim 14, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12, as described above. Claim 14 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a sulfone or sulfide. Therefore, modified Pan reads on claim 14, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by modified Pan.
Regarding claim 15, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1, 10, 12, and 14 as described above. Claim 15 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a vinyl sulfone or sulfide. Therefore, modified Pan reads on claim 15, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by modified Pan.
Regarding claim 17, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12 as described above. Claim 17 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a phosphate. Therefore, modified Pan reads on claim 17, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by modified Pan.
Regarding claim 18, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12 as described above. Claim 18 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a phosphate phosphonate, phosphite. Therefore, modified Pan reads on claim 18, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by modified Pan.
Regarding claim 19, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1, 10, and 12 as described above. Claim 19 does not affirmatively require the sodium ion-conducting organic species be a siloxane or silane. Therefore, modified Pan reads on claim 19, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by modified Pan.
Regarding claim 21, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan further teaches a working electrolyte (electrolyte, Pan [13]) in ionic contact with an anode active material and a cathode active material (providing an electrolyte in contact with the anode active material layer and the cathode active material layer, Pan [41]). Pan teaches that the electrolyte is an organic electrolyte, a polymer gel electrolyte, an ionic liquid electrolyte, a quasi-solid electrolyte, or solid-state electrolyte (Pan [57]).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claims 1 and 21, as described above. Pan further teaches the working electrolyte containing LiPF6, ethylene carbonate, and diethyl carbonate (Pan [105]).
Pan does not explicitly teach a sodium salt; however, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute LiPF6 for NaPF6 in order to obtain a working electrolyte suitable for use in a rechargeable sodium cell.
Regarding claim 30, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan further teaches the cathode comprising the cathode active material LixVO2, 0.1 < x < 5 (Pan [29]).
The x value range of Pan substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 30 (NaxVO2, x is from 0.1 to 1.0). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Pan, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As noted above, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Li for Na to obtain a material suitable for use in a sodium cell.
Regarding claim 31, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan further teaches the cathode comprising a Li-based layered oxide cathode active material (layered compound LiMO2, Pan [30]). As noted above, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Li for Na to obtain a material suitable for use in a sodium cell.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Gao (Gao, H., et al. “A Composite Gel-Polymer/Gass-Fiber Electrolyte for Sodium-Ion Batteries”. Advanced Energy Materials. 5, 9, (2015)).
Regarding claim 20, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan teaches the high-elasticity polymer containing a reinforcement material (Pan [20]). Pan does not teach the reinforcement material being polymer fiber, glass fiber, ceramic fiber, or nano-flake.
However, Gao teaches the addition of glass fiber paper to improve mechanical strength of polymer electrolyte materials (Gao, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add glass fiber to the elastic polymer electrolyte separator of Pan in order to improve mechanical strength.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhamu (US 20180233784 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan and Zheng do not teach the anode having an anode active material selected from the list recited in instant claim 22.
However, Zhamu teaches that graphite particles, hard carbon, and soft carbon are known and suitable anode active materials for use in rechargeable sodium cells (Zhamu [44]).
Since Zhamu teaches that graphite particles, hard carbon, and soft carbon are known and suitable anode active materials for use in rechargeable sodium cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use graphite particles, hard carbon, or soft carbon as the anode active material in the sodium cell of modified Pan in order to obtain an anode suitable for use in rechargeable sodium cells for a desired application.
Regarding claim 23, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan and Zheng do not teach the anode having an anode active material selected from the list recited in instant claim 23.
However, Zhamu teaches a rechargeable sodium cell wherein the anode active material is selected from the group consisting of (a) Sodium- or potassium-doped silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), bismuth (Bi), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cadmium (Cd), and mixtures thereof; (b) Sodium- or potassium-containing alloys or intermetallic compounds of Si, Ge, Sn, Pb, Sb, Bi, Zn, Al, Ti, Co, Ni, Mn, Cd, and their mixtures; (c) Sodium- or potassium-containing oxides, carbides, nitrides, sulfides, phosphides, selenides, tellurides, or antimonides of Si, Ge, Sn, Pb, Sb, Bi, Zn, Al, Fe, Ti, Co, Ni, Mn, Cd, and mixtures or composites thereof, (d) Sodium or potassium salts; (e) particles of graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon or carbon particles and pre-sodiated versions thereof and combinations thereof (Zhamu [44]).
Since Zhamu teaches the anode active materials recited in instant claim 23 known and suitable for use in rechargeable sodium cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an anode material from the list recited in instant claim 23 in the sodium cell of modified Pan in order to obtain an anode suitable for use in rechargeable sodium cells for a desired application.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhamu and Cai (Cai, Y. et al. “Influences of conductive additives on electrochemical performances of artificial graphite anode with different shapes for lithium ion batteries”. Electrochimica Acta 58, 481-487 (2011)).
Regarding claim 24, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan and Zheng do not teach the anode having an anode active material comprising a carbon or graphite material recited in instant claim 24.
Zhamu teaches a cathode comprising a conductive material comprising a carbon or graphite material selected from meso-phase pitch, meso-phase carbon, meso carbon micro-beads (MCMB), coke particles, expanded graphite flakes, artificial graphite particles, natural graphite particles, highly oriented pyrolytic graphite, soft carbon particles, hard carbon particles, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon nano-fibers, carbon fibers, graphite nano-fibers, graphite fibers, carbonized polymer fibers, or a combination thereof, wherein the carbon or graphite material has an inter-planar spacing d002 value from 0.27 nm to 0.42 nm prior to a chemical or physical expansion treatment and 0.43 nm to 2.0 nm after an expansion treatment (Zhamu [28]).
Cai teaches that it is suitable and known to add conductive additives such as carbon black and artificial graphite to anodes to improve capacity and rate capability (Cai pf. 481, right column first paragraph).
Since Zhamu teaches a conductive material comprising a carbon or graphite material recited in instant claim 24 and Cai teaches that it is suitable and known to add conductive additives to anodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a carbon or graphite material, as claimed in instant claim 24, to the anode of modified Pan in order to obtain an anode with suitable capacity and rate capability according to a desired battery application.
Regarding claim 25, Pan in view of Zheng, Zhamu, and Cai teaches all features of claims 1 and 24, as described above. Pan and Zheng do not teach the carbon or graphite material being graphite foam or graphene planes.
However, Zhamu teaches the carbon or graphite material being selected from “graphite foam or graphene foam having pores and pore walls, wherein the pore walls contain a stack of bonded graphene planes having an expanded inter-planar spacing d002 from 0.45 to 1.5 nm” (Zhamu [29]).
The inter-planar spacing range of Zhamu substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 25. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Zhamu, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Pan in view of Zheng, Zhamu, and Cai teaches all features of claims 1 and 24, as described above. Pan and Zheng do not teach an expansion treatment recited in instant claim 24 or the carbon or graphite material containing a non-carbon element.
However, Zhamu teaches the expansion treatment may include “oxidation, fluorination, bromination, chlorination, nitrogenation, intercalation, combined oxidation-intercalation, combined fluorination-intercalation, combined bromination-intercalation, combined chlorination-intercalation, or combined nitrogenation-intercalation of said graphite or carbon material” (Zhamu [31]). Zhamu further teaches that the carbon or graphite material may contain “a non-carbon element selected from oxygen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, nitrogen, hydrogen, or boron” (Zhamu [32]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an expansion treatment from those recited in instant claim 26 and use a carbon or graphite material containing a non-carbon element from the list recited in instant claim 27 in order to obtain a carbon or graphite material with desired inter-planar spacing.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Xiang (Xiang, X., et al. “Recent Advance and Prospects of Cathode Materials for Sodium-Ion Batteries”. Advanced Materials. 27, 5343-5364 (2015)).
Regarding claim 32, Pan in view of Zheng teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Pan and Zheng do not teach the cathode comprising a cathode active material in the list recited in instant claim 32.
However, Xiang teaches different cathode active materials for use in sodium batteries, with Na3V2(PO4)2F3 being a known and suitable option (Xiang Table 1).
Since Xiang teaches that Na3V2(PO4)2F3 is a known and suitable cathode active material for sodium batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cathode active material of modified Pan for Na3V2(PO4)2F3 to obtain a cathode for a sodium battery capable of intercalating and de-intercalating sodium ions. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1 and 16 due to informalities are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 16 in the response received on April 8, 2026. These objections to claims 1 and 16 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
Regarding claim 26, it is unclear what exactly is intercalated and remains in the final structure of the invention and it does not appear that the instant specification provides further details regarding the intercalation process and resulting structure. The rejection of claim 26 under U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. It is noted that there are multiple recitations of “intercalation”. For example, “combined oxidation-intercalation”.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
The following rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response filed January 8, 2026:
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 21, 28-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Kim, H.N. et al. Double Crosslinked Polyurethane Acrylate for Highly Conductive and stable Polymer Electrolyte. Polymers. 12, 2557 (2020)) in view of Zheng (Zheng, Y., “High-Capacity All-Solid-State Sodium Metal Battery with Hybrid Polymer Electrolytes”. Advanced Energy Materials. 8, 27, 1801885 (2018)).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Misenan (Misenan et al. Polyurethane-based polymer electrolyte for lithium ion batteries: a review. Polymer International. 71, 7, 751-769. (2022)) and Parveen (Parveen et al. Poly(ethylene oxide)/Polyurethane based gel polymer electrolytes for lithium batteries. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research. 4, 12 (2013)).
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee (Lee, M.J., et al. “Elastomeric electrolyte for high-energy solid-state lithium batteries”. Nature 601, 217-222; January 12, 2022) in view of Zheng (Zheng, Y., “High-Capacity All-Solid-State Sodium Metal Battery with Hybrid Polymer Electrolytes”. Advanced Energy Materials. 8, 27, 1801885 (2018)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Gao (Gao, H., et al. “A Composite Gel-Polymer/Gass-Fiber Electrolyte for Sodium-Ion Batteries”. Advanced Energy Materials. 5, 9, (2015)).
Claims 2-3 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhamu (US 20180233784 A1).
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhamu and Cai (Cai, Y. et al. “Influences of conductive additives on electrochemical performances of artificial graphite anode with different shapes for lithium ion batteries”. Electrochimica Acta 58, 481-487 (2011)).
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zheng, as applied to instant claim 1 above, and in further view of Xiang (Xiang, X., et al. “Recent Advance and Prospects of Cathode Materials for Sodium-Ion Batteries”. Advanced Materials. 27, 5343-5364 (2015))
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lv (Lv, P. et al. Flexible solid electrolyte based on UV cured polyurethane acrylate/succinonitrile-lithium salt composite compatibilized by tetrahydrofuran. Composites Part B. 120, 35-41 (2017)): appears to disclose an electrolyte comprising polyurethane acrylate and succinonitrile (abstract).
Santhosh (Santhosh, P. et al. Preparation and properties of new cross-linked polyurethan acrylate electrolytes for lithium batteries. Journal of Power Sources. 160, 609-620 (2006)): appears to disclose a cross-linked polyurethane acrylate electrolyte for lithium batteries (abstract, title).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
