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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 2, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the cited teachings of Hayashi are limited to lithium. However, the entire publication refers to lithium and sodium as interchangeable (see Hayashi [0006]). While the cited paragraph references lithium, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it applies to both. This is consistent with the teachings of Ma (cited in the rejection of claims 22-23 below), which directly equates such coatings on both lithium and sodium (p. 663, 2nd paragraph), and in which a 10 µm thick coating is provided on a sodium anode (p. 664, 2nd complete paragraph).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (US 2017/0005337 A1) in view of Chi et al. ("A high-energy quinone-based all-solid-state sodium metal battery", Nano Energy 62, pp. 718-724, June 4, 2019) and Hayashi et al. (JP 2018/190658 A; all citations refer to the attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ikejiri teaches a sodium-ion secondary battery comprising a solid electrolyte having sodium-ion conductivity (beta alumina solid electrolyte, or BASE) and a metallic sodium layer on one surface of the electrolyte layer (Ikejiri Example 1, [0089]-[0092]).
Ikejiri does not teach the use of a metallic layer of a different metal between the sodium and the electrolyte. Chi teaches that adding a metallic Sn layer between a BASE electrolyte and a sodium metal anode improves the wettability of the electrolyte and cycling stability of the battery (Chi Conclusions). Hayashi teaches that both Sn and Au are suitable for improving adhesion between solid electrolyte layers and alkali metal anodes (Hayashi [0024]). Au and Sn are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting known equivalents is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.06. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add an Au layer between the anode and electrolyte of Ikejiri in order to improve the wettability of the electrolyte and cycling stability of the battery.
Hayashi teaches that an appropriate thickness of the metal layer is 0.01-10 µm (Hayashi [0024]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ikejiri teaches that the metallic layer is a vapor-deposited film (Chi 3. Results and discussion: “deposited…via thermal evaporation”; and Hayashi [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant has indicated that Au is capable of absorbing and releasing sodium ions ([0036] of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 5, the Au layer will necessarily alloy with Na as the ions pass through during charging and discharging of the battery, since the layer will comprise both metallic gold and sodium.
Regarding claim 6, the member of modified Ikejiri is used in a sodium-ion secondary battery (Ikejiri Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ikejiri teaches a sodium-ion secondary battery in which the solid electrolyte layer has a first principal surface and a second principal surface opposed to each other, the sodium-ion secondary battery comprises: a positive electrode layer provided on the first principal surface of the solid electrolyte layer; and a negative electrode layer provided on the second principal surface of the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode layer bcontains the metallic sodium layer and the metallic layer (Ikejiri Example 1, [0089]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ikejiri uses Au.
Regarding claim 11, the battery of modified Ikejiri includes crystals of Na2FeP2O7 (Ikejiri [0090]), which is a sodium transition metal phosphate containing Fe.
Regarding claim 12, Ikejiri teaches a sodium-ion secondary battery comprising a solid electrolyte having sodium-ion conductivity (beta alumina solid electrolyte, or BASE), a metallic sodium layer on one surface of the electrolyte layer, and a positive electrode layer comprising crystals of Na2FeP2O7, which is a sodium transition metal phosphate containing Fe, on the other surface of the electrolyte (Ikejiri Example 1, [0089]-[0092]).
Ikejiri does not teach the use of a metallic layer of a different metal between the sodium and the electrolyte. Chi teaches that adding a metallic Sn layer between a BASE electrolyte and a sodium metal anode improves the wettability of the electrolyte and cycling stability of the battery (Chi Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add a Sn layer between the anode and electrolyte of Ikejiri in order to improve the wettability of the electrolyte and cycling stability of the battery.
Hayashi teaches that the thickness of such a metal layer should be 0.01-10 µm to improve dissolution and precipitation of the alkali metal (Hayashi [0024]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a thickness in this range, including values within the range of the instant claim, to improve dissolution and precipitation of the alkali metal.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ikejiri teaches that the metallic layer is a vapor-deposited film (Chi 3. Results and discussion: “deposited…via thermal evaporation”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ikejiri teaches the use of Sn.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant has indicated that Sn is capable of absorbing and releasing sodium ions ([0036] of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 16, the Sn layer will necessarily alloy with Na as the ions pass through during charging and discharging of the battery, since the layer will comprise both metallic tin and sodium.
Regarding claim 17, the metallic layer and sodium layer are bonded together (Chi Conclusions), so the metallic layer and sodium layer are both part of the negative electrode.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified Ikejiri does not teach the use of a metal other than Sn. Hayashi teaches that both Sn and Au are suitable for improving adhesion between solid electrolyte layers and alkali metal anodes (Hayashi [0024]). Au and Sn are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting known equivalents is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri in view of Chi and Hayashi as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Wakasugi et al. (“Effect of Gold Layer on Interface Resistance between Lithium Metal Anode and Li6.25Al0.25La3 Zr2 O12 Solid Electrolyte”, Journal of the Electrochemical Society 164(6), pp. A1022-A1025, March 2017).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ikejiri does not teach the use of sputtering. Modified Ikejiri teaches that the layer is deposited by vapor deposition to improve the interface between the anode and the electrolyte (Chi Conclusions; Hayashi [0024]). Wakasugi teaches that sputtering can be used to deposit a metal interlayer between a solid electrolyte and an alkali metal anode to improve the interface (Wakasugi Introduction, 5th paragraph). Vapor deposition and sputtering are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting known equivalents is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.06. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute sputtering for vapor deposition, since they are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 20, modified Ikejiri does not teach the use of sputtering. Modified Ikejiri teaches that the layer is deposited by vapor deposition to improve the interface between the anode and the electrolyte (Chi Conclusions). Wakasugi teaches that sputtering can be used to deposit a metal interlayer between a solid electrolyte and an alkali metal anode to improve the interface (Wakasugi Introduction, 5th paragraph). Vapor deposition and sputtering are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting known equivalents is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.06. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute sputtering for vapor deposition, since they are art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. ("In situ Synthesis of a Bismuth Layer on a Sodium Metal Anode for Fast Interfacial Transport in Sodium-Oxygen Batteries", Batteries & Supercaps 2(8), pp. 663-667, April 11, 2019) in view of Hayashi.
Regarding claim 22, Ma teaches a member for a sodium-ion secondary battery comprising an electrolyte layer (glass fiber separator with sodium electrolyte) and a metallic sodium layer anode with a metallic bismuth layer between the anode and electrolyte (Supporting Information, Experimental Procedures).
Ma does not teach the use of a solid electrolyte layer. Hayashi teaches that dendrite formation in sodium-ion batteries can be suppressed by the use of a solid electrolyte in place of a liquid electrolyte (Hayashi [0002]-[0003] and [0006]-[0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to replace the separator/liquid electrolyte of Ma with the solid electrolyte of Hayashi to suppress dendrite formation.
Regarding claim 23, Ma teaches the use of Bi (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722