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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 4 is amended. Claims 14-15 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-4 and 6-13, as filed 6 April 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (1) that Yuan does not disclose a precursor with a transition metal salt, a sodium salt, and ethyl orthosilicate as raw materials, wherein a molar ratio of sodium atoms in the sodium salt to metal atoms in the transition metal salt does not exceed 1, and is not less than 0.5, and a molar ratio of sodium atoms in the sodium salt to silicon atoms in the ethyl orthosilicate does not exceed 2. This argument is moot in light of a new reference, Jiang.
Applicant further argues (2) that Yuan does not disclose “weighing and tableting powder, wherein a pressure applied is not greater than 100 MPa, and the pressure is maintained for 3~5 minutes, to obtain a precursor sheet with a thickness not more than 3 mm” This argument is moot in light of a new reference, Jiang, with some details of the process steps provided by Yuan and Barker, as set forth below. Examiner notes that in order to overcome the rejection based on these limitations, it would be helpful to provide evidence of criticality for the specific parameters such as pressing time, thickness, type of crucible, and ramp rate.
Applicant further argues that there is no motivation for the specific ratios of sodium to metal and sodium to silicon as set forth in the instant claims. This is moot in light of the motivation to optimize as set forth in Jiang with respect to claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN105977486A, cited by Applicant in IDS dated 10 March 2022, with paragraph numbering to the provided English translation) in view of Yuan (CN 105819461A), Barker (US 20040197654 A1) and Yang (US 20180151878 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 11 and 12, Jiang teaches a preparation method of a transition metal silicate ion conductor ([0002] , [0005] “stronger ion conductivity”)
1) preparing a precursor, comprising wherein the precursor is prepared with a transition metal salt, a sodium salt, and ethyl orthosilicate as raw materials,. ([0011] mixing a transition metal salt …. with a sodium salt, wherein the molar ratio of metal atoms in the transition metal salt or transition metal oxide to the molar ratio of sodium atoms in the sodium salt is 1:(2-3). Slowly add tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) as the silicon source, so that the molar ratio of metal atoms: sodium atoms: silicon atoms = 1:(2~3):1)” Examiner notes that “tetraethyl orthosilicate” is the systematic IUPAC-style name and the common commercial designation for “ethyl orthosilicate”. The instant claim requires ranges of sodium: metal of 0.5-, which is equivalent to metal: sodium 1:1 to 1:2; and of sodium:silicon ≤ 2 is equivalent to ≤ 2:1. The ranges taught by Jiang (metal: sodium 1:2 to 1:3; sodium: silicon 2:1 to 3:1) meet the claimed ranges at the end points. At [0013], Jiang contemplates that if the amount of sodium salt is too low, sodium loss will occur during sintering, and if the amount of sodium salt is too high, impurities such as Na2SiO3 will be formed.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the amount of sodium in the sol gel reaction of Jiang, with a reasonable expectation of successfully avoiding sodium loss and formation of impurities, thus rendering obvious selection of ratios in the overlapping part of the range.
2) making a solid phase sintered transition metal silicate sodium ion conductor, comprising ….. milling a resultant to refine powder particles; weighing and tableting the powder, wherein a pressure applied is not greater than 100 MPa, and the pressure is maintained for 3~5 minutes, ([0014] “grinding or ball milling … a suitable amount of powder is weighted and pressed into sheets at (30-40) MPa for a certain period of time.”) At [0057] Jiang discloses that the pressure is maintained for two minutes for a worked example, which is below the claimed range, however Jiang does not impose any specific limitations on the amount of time the pressure is applied.
Pertaining to the time that pressure is applied, absent persuasive evidence that the applied time to form the tablet is significant, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a pressure of 2 minutes, and if the tablet density is not sufficient, to repeat the tablet process, therefore rendering obvious the selection of a value in the claimed range without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].”
finally sintering the precursor sheet in the vacuum tubular furnace protected by an inert gas for more than 8 hours, at a sintering temperature of 500~900 ˚C so as to obtain a crystalline or amorphous transition metal silicate sodium ion conductor; ([0014] The precursor sheet is covered with graphite paper, placed in a vacuum tube furnace, protected by inert gas, and sintered at (600-900)℃ for more than 10 hours to obtain the sodium-rich transition metal silicate.”)
Regarding the claimed steps 1 and 2, Jiang discloses ([0011]) oven drying at 60-120 ˚C but does not explicitly teach a step of transferring the precursor into a porcelain boat, and pre-sintering the precursor in a vacuum tubular furnace protected by an inert gas at 300~500 ˚C for more than 5 hours; Jiang does not explicitly teach that the precursor sheet has a thickness not more than 3 mm; transferring the precursor sheet into a porcelain boat, Jiang does not explicitly teach wherein the heating and cooling rates for sintering do not exceed 2 °C per minute. Jiang is also silent on the entirety of step 3.
Yuan, in the field of ([0002]) sodium silicate doped positive electrode materials, discloses at [0023] a “preferred embodiment of the method … the pre-firing condition ….at 350-500 ˚C for 2-6 hours in an inert atmosphere.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to carry out the pre-firing step of Yuan based on Yuan’s teaching that it is a “preferred embodiment”, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating the precursor material. Examiner notes that the vacuum tube furnace taught by Jiang at [0014] would be a reasonable choice of furnace, to reduce the number of furnaces required to made the product.) This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 9, wherein the pre-sintering temperature is selected from 350 ˚C, 400 ˚C, 450 ˚C or 500 ˚C, which are candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding “the precursor sheet had a thickness not more than 3 mm”, Yuan at [0040] discloses “pressing into a film with a thickness of about 1 mm using a film press”. (This falls within the claimed range of ≤ 3mm.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the 1 mm film thickness of Yuan with a reasonable expectation of achieving a positive electrode having an appropriate thickness.
Jiang and Yuan are both silent on (A) transferring the precursor sheet into a porcelain boat, and (B) wherein the heating and cooling rates do not exceed 2˚C per minute, so as to obtain a crystalline or amorphous transition metal silicate sodium ion conductor with high ionic conductivity.
Pertaining to both (A) and (B) above, Barker (in the field of electroactive materials, see Abstract and [0168]) discloses at ([0319]) that the pelletized material is “transfer[red] to a temperature-controlled tube furnace and heated at a preferred ramp rate of about 2˚C/minute to an ultimate temperature of about 800°C”, which falls within the instant temperature ramp rate limitation. At ([0312]) Barker contemplates that “the cooling may be conducted at a rate similar to the earlier ramp rate. Such a cooling rate has been found to be adequate to achieve the desired structure of the final product”, which falls within the instant claim limitation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to both heat and cool the pellet of modified Jiang at the 2˚C/minute rate as contemplated by Barker, with a reasonable expectation of achieving the desired structure of the final product, thus obtaining a crystalline or amorphous transition metal silicate sodium ion conductor with high ionic conductivity.
At ([0321]) Barker contemplates that the pellet may be placed inside a nickel crucible or other suitable container such as a ceramic crucible (the claimed alumina boat is a type of ceramic crucible).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the ceramic crucible as contemplated by Barker, for the pellet of modified Jiang, with a reasonable expectation of successful sintering, based on Barker’s teaching of suitability.
Returning to step 3 of claim 1, Jiang does not teach step 3) of performing ion exchange, comprising using an ion exchange method to replace Na in an obtained transition metal silicate sodium ion conductor with other metal ions, so as to prepare other alkali metal or alkaline earth metal ion conductors, wherein ion exchange can be performed by … molten salt exchange…. the molten salt exchange is achieved by to immersing the obtained sodium ion conductor into a molten salt containing different metal ions, and carrying out ion exchange with different chemical potentials….
Yang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches ([0033]) ion exchange using molten salt which allows for the production of a compound containing the easily volatilizable the Li element, without losing the Li during the sintering process. Specifically, Yang teaches replacing Na in a NaEuTi04 compound with Li, to create LiEuTi04, which solves the problem of Li volatilizing during high temperature treatment. At [0003-0005], Yang’s lithium compound has a complicated production process by a conventional route, which can be avoided by making a sodium compound and using molten Li salt to ion exchange.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to attempt the molten salt ion exchange process as taught by Yang on the silicate compound of modified Jiang, in order solve the problem of Li volatilizing during high temperature treatment, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating a desirable lithium silicate compound. This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 11, wherein lithium ion is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives, and the limitation of claim 12, wherein the molten salt in step 3) is a salt capable of dissociating desired metal ions in a molten state.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang in view of Yuan, Barker and Yang teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Jiang further teaches wherein the transition metal salt is [0015] (the metal in the transition metal salt …. Is Ti, Cr, Ni, Mn, Co or V, and the transition metal salt refers to acetate, oxalate, nitrate.” These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 3, Jiang in view of Yuan, Barker and Yang teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Jiang further teaches wherein the sodium salt is ([0016]) sodium acetate, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 4, Jiang in view of Yuan, Barker and Yang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Regarding the limitation wherein in step 1), when the molar ratio of sodium atoms in the sodium salt to metal atoms in the transition metal salt is 1-2, a product is in a crystalline state, and when the molar ratio of sodium atoms in the sodium salt to metal atoms in the transition metal salt is less than 1, a product is in an amorphous state. Modified Jiang as set forth above teaches the chemistry and processing steps of the claimed material, therefore the claimed material at a molar ratio of 1:1 will necessarily possess the claimed amorphous state.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Jiang in view of Yuan, Barker and Yang teaches all of the limitations as considered above, the claimed molar ratios and motivation to optimize, as set forth in claim 1, above, are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 8, Jiang in view of Yuan, Barker and Yang teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Jiang further teaches wherein in step 2), the inert gas is ([0037]) nitrogen or argon, which are candidates within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 10, Jiang in view of Yuan, Barker and Yang teaches all of the limitations as considered above, and Jiang further teaches wherein in step 2), the sintering temperature is ([0037]) 600 ˚C which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 13, Jiang in view of Yuan, Barker and Yang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Regarding the limitation wherein the solution in step 3) is a solution capable of ionizing desired metal ions in a solvent. Jiang at ([0005]) discloses a sodium ion battery having a sodium containing electrolyte. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect that metal ions are ionized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/20/2026
Prosecution Insights