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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on February 9, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
The claim interpretations set forth in the previous Office Action stands;
The rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 recite various “and/or” limitations, reciting features there in which can be selected together (and) or in the alternative (or), the latter rendering certain limitations in the claims to be optional features as noted with specificity in the rejection(s) below.
Claim 2 is written to a cell characterized by at least one of the limitations recited in lines 3-14 and the cell is further characterized by at least one limitation recited in lines 16-27. The limitations of lines 3-14 of claim 2 only require at least one of those limitations to be met and lines 16-27 only require at least one of those limitations to be met to sufficiently read on the claim. Furthermore, additional dependent claim limitations defining a particular limitation which is directed to only one limitation of the “and/or” limitations of the same claim or preceding claim, may only serve to limit the one limitation while not requiring such a limitation to be effectively present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0357645) in view of Yamada et al. (“Unusual Stability of Acetonitrile-Based Superconcentrated Electrolytes for Fast-Charging Lithium-Ion Batteries”).
As to claim 1, Morita discloses sodium ion batteries (an electrochemical cell) comprising:
a cathode 1 and an anode 2; and
an electrolyte 3 positioned between the cathode and anode comprising:
one or more solvent precursors including acetonitrile (para. [0054]); and
i..at least one sodium salt comprising: boron, aluminum, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and/or hydrogen (para. [0054]); and/or
ii. a sodium cation and a boron, aluminum, phosphorus or a chlorine cored anion (para. [0054]); where
the molar ratio of the nitrogen-containing solvent to the sodium salt is between 0.1 and 10 (para. [0054]).
Morita teaches of the salts being an array of convention sodium salts including NaPF6, NaBF6, NaClO4 and organic sodium salts such as NaCF3SO3, NaN(CF3SO2)2, NaN(C2F5SO2)2, and NaC(CF3SO2)3 which sufficiently reads on the sodium salts of claim 1.
Morita recognized that the concentration of the sodium salt can range from 0.3-5M in the same paragraph. Thus Morita recognized the use of high concentration sodium salts and for higher concentrations (e.g., 2M, 3M, 4M, 5M), the ratio of solvent to salt significantly increases, thus teaching higher molar concentrations of solvent to salt as being appreciated.
Morita sufficiently teaches of salts which fall under the salts of claim 1. Morita teaches of a genus of solvents including acetonitrile, thus reasonably teaching of acetonitrile in combination with those salts above. Lastly Morita teaches that the concentration of salt to solvent ranges from 0.3-5M and it would have been of routine skill in the art to modify the salts above in combination with acetonitrile solvent across the range of 0.3-5M with sufficient motivation for such combinations as effective electrolytes for the electrochemical cells of Morita. For example, selecting any of NaPF6, NaBF6, NaClO4 and organic sodium salts such as NaCF3SO3, NaN(CF3SO2)2, NaN(C2F5SO2)2, and NaC(CF3SO2)3 in acetonitrile is sufficiently appreciated by Morita. Optimization or selection of the concentration to be anywhere ranging from 0.3-5M reasonably overlaps in scope with the salt concentrations of the instant application, thus obviating the molar concentration ratio of claim 1 from 0.1-10 solvent to salt. Selection of higher concentrations would have been recognized to improve ion mobility transfer. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In addition, Yamada recognized that acetonitrile-based superconcentrated electrolytes provide for certain benefits.
Acetonitrile (AN) is one of the most oxidation-tolerant organic solvents. In addition, due to its high dielectric constant,5 AN can easily dissolve electrolyte salts to exhibit considerably high ionic conductivity. Because of these attractive features, AN solutions are a promising electrolyte for various electrochemical devices (Yamada, page 5039, left-hand column). In a superconcentrated 4.2 mol dm−3 LiTFSA/ AN solution, however, no visible change was observed both for the lithium metal foil and for the solution, indicating that superconcentrated solution overcomes the inherent poor reductive stability of AN solvent to exhibit enhanced tolerance toward reduction. The unusual reductive stability was further proved by reversible lithium−metal deposition/dissolution reaction in 4.2M LiTFSA/AN electrolyte (Figure S2). The molar ratio of solvent to salt at concentrations of 3M and 4.2M fall in the range of 0.1 to 10 (Table 1).
While the teachings of Yamada are drawn to lithium batteries, lithium and sodium batteries are considered homologs in the sense that they use the same basic chemistry but with Li+ swapped for Na+ leading to similar mechanisms. As discussed above, Morita recognized that high concentration sodium salt electrolytes were appreciated at the time of Morita, further noting that various solvents including acetonitrile was a noted suitable solvent for an array of convention sodium salts including NaTFSA. While Yamada is drawn to lithium batteries, Yamada teaches that super-concentrated electrolytes in the presence of acetonitrile can be successfully employed without adverse reaction with a metal anode. Lithium and sodium batteries are considered homologs in the sense that they use the same basic chemistry but with Li+ swapped for Na+ leading to similar mechanisms. Thus there is sufficient motivation from the combination to lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to use super-concentrated electrolytes in the presence of acetonitrile as a solvent noting that acetonitrile is one of the most oxidation-tolerant organic solvents. In addition, due to its high dielectric constant acetonitrile can easily dissolve electrolyte salts to exhibit considerably high ionic conductivity while providing a rechargeable battery design having good safety due to the non-reactive nature of acetonitrile solvents at high salt concentrations.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Morita by selecting acetonitrile as the solvent as taught by Yamada since it would have provided a solvent having high dielectric constant acetonitrile can easily dissolve electrolyte salts to exhibit considerably high ionic conductivity. Furthermore, upon selection of acetonitrile for such benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concentration to be a high concentration such as 4.2M (high salt content equating to a high solvent to salt ratio of 0.1 to 10 acetonitrile solvent to 1 mol salt) as taught by Yamada to provide a suitable salt concentration wherein the alkali (lithium or sodium) ion can effectively cycle upon charging/discharging.
As to claim 2, the salt can be NaPF6, NaBF6, NaClO4 and organic sodium salts such as NaCF3SO3, NaN(CF3SO2)2, NaN(C2F5SO2)2, and NaC(CF3SO2)3.
As to claim 3, as discussed above, the salt concentration can range from 0.1 to 5M which encompasses the range of 3-5M of claim 3. In addition each electrode includes a current collector substrate 4 or 5; the negative electrode (anode) is metallic sodium (paras. [0045]; [[66]).
As to claim 4, the current collectors are metallic (para. [0060]).
As to claims 5-8, the current collector is metal such as aluminum, copper, nickel (para. [0060]). As to claims 6-8, claims 6-8 only defines one species of claims 4-5 without effectively requiring this species be selected. Therefore the additional limitations of claims 6-8 are optional. Notably, claims 4-8 presents both a current collector or metallic collector surface, claims 6-7 only defined the metallic collector surface species without effectively requiring this species be selected The electrodeposition of metallic sodium of claim 8 is also an optional species in the context of previous claim 4 which renders the limitations to metallic sodium active material as a limitation in an “and/or” array of other limitations in claim 4. As Morita anticipates claim 4 (the current collector of comprising a metal), and claims 6-8 only further define the metallic collector surface species and electrodeposited metallic sodium without effectively requiring these species to be selected, Morita broadly anticipates the current collector species of claims 6-7 and cathode of claim 8.
As to claim 9, Morita discloses a method of manufacturing sodium ion batteries (an electrochemical cell) comprising:
Providing a cathode 1 and an anode 2; and
Providing an electrolyte 3 positioned between the cathode and anode comprising:
one or more solvent precursors including acetonitrile (para. [0054]); and
i..at least one sodium salt comprising: boron, aluminum, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and/or hydrogen (para. [0054]); and/or
ii. a sodium cation and a boron, aluminum, phosphorus or a chlorine cored anion (para. [0054]); where
the molar ratio of the nitrogen-containing solvent to the sodium salt is between 0.1 and 10 (para. [0054]).
Morita teaches of the salts being an array of convention sodium salts including NaPF6, NaBF6, NaClO4 and organic sodium salts such as NaCF3SO3, NaN(CF3SO2)2, NaN(C2F5SO2)2, and NaC(CF3SO2)3 which sufficiently reads on the sodium salts of claim 1.
Morita recognized that the concentration of the sodium salt can range from 0.3-5M in the same paragraph. Thus Morita recognized the use of high concentration sodium salts and for higher concentrations (e.g., 2M, 3M, 4M, 5M), the ratio of solvent to salt significantly increases, thus teaching higher molar concentrations of solvent to salt as being appreciated.
Morita sufficiently teaches of salts which fall under the salts of claim 1. Morita teaches of a genus of solvents including acetonitrile, thus reasonably teaching of acetonitrile in combination with those salts above. Lastly Morita teaches that the concentration of salt to solvent ranges from 0.3-5M and it would have been of routine skill in the art to modify the salts above in combination with acetonitrile solvent across the range of 0.3-5M with sufficient motivation for such combinations as effective electrolytes for the electrochemical cells of Morita. For example, selecting any of NaPF6, NaBF6, NaClO4 and organic sodium salts such as NaCF3SO3, NaN(CF3SO2)2, NaN(C2F5SO2)2, and NaC(CF3SO2)3 in acetonitrile is sufficiently appreciated by Morita. Optimization or selection of the concentration to be anywhere ranging from 0.3-5M reasonably overlaps in scope with the salt concentrations of the instant application, thus obviating the molar concentration ratio of claim 1 from 0.1-10 solvent to salt. Selection of higher concentrations would have been recognized to improve ion mobility transfer. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In addition, Yamada recognized that acetonitrile-based superconcentrated electrolytes provide for certain benefits.
Acetonitrile (AN) is one of the most oxidation-tolerant organic solvents. In addition, due to its high dielectric constant, AN can easily dissolve electrolyte salts to exhibit considerably high ionic conductivity. Because of these attractive features, AN solutions are a promising electrolyte for various electrochemical devices (Yamada, page 5039, left-hand column). In a superconcentrated 4.2 mol dm−3 LiTFSA/ AN solution, however, no visible change was observed both for the lithium metal foil and for the solution, indicating that superconcentrated solution overcomes the inherent poor reductive stability of AN solvent to exhibit enhanced tolerance toward reduction. The unusual reductive stability was further proved by reversible lithium−metal deposition/dissolution reaction in 4.2M LiTFSA/AN electrolyte (Figure S2). The molar ratio of solvent to salt at concentrations of 3M and 4.2M fall in the range of 0.1 to 10 (Table 1).
While the teachings of Yamada are drawn to lithium batteries, lithium and sodium batteries are considered homologs in the sense that they use the same basic chemistry but with Li+ swapped for Na+ leading to similar mechanisms, hence a reasonable expectation that the substation of similar homologs would have effectively resulted in similar functionality. Homologs often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties.
As discussed above, Morita recognized that high concentration sodium salt electrolytes were appreciated at the time of Morita, further noting that various solvents including acetonitrile was a noted suitable solvent for an array of convention sodium salts including NaTFSA. While Yamada is drawn to lithium batteries, Yamada teaches that super-concentrated electrolytes in the presence of acetonitrile can be successfully employed without adverse reaction with a metal anode. Lithium and sodium batteries are considered homologs in the sense that they use the same basic chemistry but with Li+ swapped for Na+ leading to similar mechanisms. Thus there is sufficient motivation from the combination to lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to use super-concentrated electrolytes in the presence of acetonitrile as a solvent noting that acetonitrile is one of the most oxidation-tolerant organic solvents. In addition, due to its high dielectric constant acetonitrile can easily dissolve electrolyte salts to exhibit considerably high ionic conductivity while providing a rechargeable battery design having good safety due to the non-reactive nature of acetonitrile solvents at high salt concentrations.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Morita by selecting acetonitrile as the solvent as taught by Yamada since it would have provided a solvent having high dielectric constant acetonitrile can easily dissolve electrolyte salts to exhibit considerably high ionic conductivity. Furthermore, upon selection of acetonitrile for such benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concentration to be a high concentration such as 4.2M (high salt content equating to a high solvent to salt ratio in the range of 0.1 to 10) as taught by Yamada to provide a suitable salt concentration wherein the alkali (lithium or sodium) ion can effectively cycle upon charging/discharging.
As to claim 10, the salt can be NaPF6, NaBF6, NaClO4 and organic sodium salts such as NaCF3SO3, NaN(CF3SO2)2, NaN(C2F5SO2)2, and NaC(CF3SO2)3.
As to claims 10-11, as discussed above, the salt concentration can range from 0.1 to 5M which encompasses the range of 3-5M of claim 3. In addition each electrode includes a current collector substrate 4 or 5; the negative electrode (anode) is metallic sodium (paras. [0045]; [[66]).
As to claim 12, the current collectors are metallic (para. [0060]).
As to claims 13-16, the current collector is metal such as aluminum, copper, nickel (para. [0060]). Claims 13-16 only defines one species of claims 12 without effectively requiring this species be selected. Therefore the additional limitations of claims 13-16 are optional. Notably, claims 13-16 presents both a current collector or metallic collector surface, claims 13-16 only defined the metallic collector surface species without effectively requiring this species be selected The electrodeposition of metallic sodium of claims 14-15 is also an optional species in the context of previous claim 13 which renders the limitations to metallic sodium active material as a limitation in an “and/or” array of other limitations in claim 13. As Morita anticipates claim 13 (the current collector of comprising a metal), and claims 14-16 only further define the metallic collector surface species and electrodeposited metallic sodium without effectively requiring these species to be selected, Morita broadly anticipates the current collector species of claims 14-16.
As to claim 17, the cell about is a battery (para. [0003]).
As to claims 18-20, the battery is useful in vehicles (para. [0062]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725