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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, as filed 01/01/2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to claim 2, Examiner notes that this objection is maintained.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues that Ikejiri does not teach a slurry or paste. Examiner notes that the instant claim 1 requires an electrode mixture comprising particles. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an electrode mixture” could refer to a dry mixture, and therefore is not required to be a slurry or paste.
Applicant further argues that Ikejiri is directed to suppressing cluster formation rather that creating a cluster of polyphosphate acid transition metal oxide. Applicant specifically argues that para [0037] teaches against cluster formation and that agglomeration is not described at [0037]. Examiner notes that the limitation of claim 1 “the active material is a cluster… with a plurality of individual properties connected together” is met by one particle meeting this limitation. The “consideration of agglomeration” at [0037] suggests that at least one cluster exists. Further evidence is provided by Ikejiri’s method at [0012-0016], disclosing a firing step (d) to precipitate a crystal. Examiner notes that some agglomeration is expected in a crystal precipitation process. Ikejiri at [0048] discloses a firing temperature to precipitate the crystal of “preferably 400˚C or more” and “the upper limit is more preferably 750˚C.” The instant specification [0079] discloses a firing temperature of 400˚C to 800˚C, (the same range) which results in an agglomerate crystal. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objection
Claim 2 is objected to because it includes the limitation “the polyphosphate acid transition metal oxide is crystal”. The article “a” should be added. Correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes the limitation “electrode mixture”. An electrode mixture could be a mixture of various active material and additive that is formed into a finished electrode. This interpretation is supported by claim 19 “the electrode mixture has a thickness of 10 µm to 5000 µm and a total weight per unit area of 1 mg/cm2 to 5000 mg/cm2” – the thickness of an electrode is commonly measured after depositing onto a current collector. Alternatively, the “electrode mixture” could be a slurry or paste (prior to coating onto a current collector, drying, optional compression, and optional sintering) which includes a mixture of various components. Based on the specification especially at [0022-0024], the “electrode mixture” of the instant claims is determined to be the electrode mixture after applying to a current collector or solid electrolyte, or after forming of a freestanding electrode.
Claim 15 includes the limitation “wherein the electrode mixture is porous comprising pores, and wherein the electrode mixture has a porosity within the range of 5% to 50%.” It is not clear if this measurement of porosity is before or after addition of EC, PEC, PEG, or PEO in the electrode mixture (see [0063] of the specification: “wherein the electrode mixture is further porous comprising pores, and the electrode mixture has a porosity within the range of 5% to 50%, which ensures sufficient containment of EC, PEC, PEG, or PEO in the electrode mixture”). For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation is determined to include the porosity before or after the addition of EC, PEC, PEG, or PEO.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikejiri (US 20170217774 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikejiri teaches (abstract) an electrode mixture used for an all-solid-state sodium storage battery,
the electrode mixture comprising an active material, (abstract)
Ikejiri teaches [0037] agglomeration of the positive active material powder and teaches [0055] that the material comprises Na2FeP2O7. Examiner notes that Na2FeP2O7is a type of polyphosphate transition metal oxide. Agglomerated material is equivalent to a cluster of particles.
Ikejiri teaches [0021] an average particle diameter 0.1 µm to 4 µm, which falls within the claimed particle size range of 0.1 µm to 100 µm.
Regarding claim 2, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the polyphosphate acid transition metal oxide is crystal represented by the general formula NaaMbPcOd, and wherein M is at least any one selected from Fe, Mn, Co, Ni and V provided that 0.0<a<3.5, b=1, 1.0<c<3.0, and 3.0<d<30. ([0037] agglomeration of the powder [0055] Na2FeP2O7)
Regarding claim 4, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches [0034] the need for improved electron conductivity, and at [0062] teaches the use of carbon black as a conductive additive, which is a candidate are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives for electron conductive assistant.
Regarding claim 5, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the electron conductive assistant is loaded on part or all of a surface of the electrode mixture. ([0054] “surface covered with conductive carbon”)
Regarding claim 6, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the electron conductive assistant is loaded on a surface of a part that connects the individual particles of the active material. ([0054] “surface covered with conductive carbon”)
Regarding claim 8, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the electron conductive assistant is carbon selected from at least one of powdered carbon, fibrous carbon, and flaky carbon. ([0062] carbon black as a conductive additive. Examiner notes that carbon black is a type of powdered carbon).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 7, and 16- 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri (US 20170217774 A1), as set forth in claims 1 and 8, above, and in further view of Piwko (US 20200052304 A1) and Wang (US 20140186719 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ikejiri teaches [0024] the motivation of improved sodium ion conductivity and teaches [0054] that a nonionic surfactant polyethylene oxide nonyl phenyl ether can be added to the electrode mixture precursor, which is then fired at 620˚C for 30 minutes, removing the PEO-type material.) However, Ikejiri does not explicitly teach the electrode mixture [as a finished electrode -see claim interpretation above] comprising an ion conductive assistant, wherein the ion conductive assistant is at least one selected from a group consisting of ethylene carbonate (EC), polyethylene carbonate (PEC), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and polyethylene oxide (PEO).
Piwko, in the field of (abstract) energy storage, discloses [0052] that the active material may be provided as part of a mixture (for example … active cathode material layer), where the mixture may include or have been formed from: the active material, one or more than one conductive additive (for example conductive black, carbon nanotubes and/or carbon fibers), and/or one or more than one binder material (e.g. …, polyethylene oxide…). Examiner notes that PEO is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. Piwko discloses [0007-0009] that this creates a successful battery.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the polyethylene oxide of Piwko to the electrode mixture of Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful battery. However, Piwko does not explicitly teach that PEO binder material has good ion conductivity.
Wang, in the field of (abstract) sodium ion electrolyte materials, discloses at [0039] that polyethylene oxide is one of a list of candidates for use as a polymer electrolyte. Because PEO is disclosed as a polymer electrolyte, a person of ordinary skill would expect that it has good ion conductivity and can act as an ion conductive assistant.
Regarding claim 7, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ikejiri does not explicitly teach wherein the electron conductive assistant is contained within a part that connects the individual particles of the active material. Piwko and Wang, as set forth in claim 3 and incorporated herein by reference, render obvious the addition of polyethylene oxide (PEO) to fill pores in the active material mixture. Because the PEO fills pores, it therefore connects individual particles of the active material. At [0052] Piwko discloses adding a conductive additive e.g. carbon black and a binder material e.g. PEO as part of the active cathode material layer mixture. Examiner notes that a mixture of conductive additive in PEO meets the limitation wherein the electron conductive assistant is contained within a part that connects the individual particles of the active material.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add both the conductive additive and PEO of Piwko to the active cathode material layers of modified Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving both ion conduction and electron conduction in the electrode mixture of modified Ikejiri, thus rendering obvious the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ikejiri teaches [0024] the motivation of improved sodium ion conductivity. However, Ikejiri does not explicitly teach the explicitly teach wherein the pores have a pore size of 0.1 µm to 100 µm.
Piwko, in the field of (abstract) energy storage, discloses [0050] that the active cathode material may be porous (“connected pores and passages”) and at [0052] that the active material may include a binder material (e.g. …, polyethylene oxide…). Examiner notes that PEO is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. Piwko discloses [0007-0009] that this creates a successful battery.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the polyethylene oxide of Piwko to the electrode mixture of Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful battery. However, Piwko does not explicitly teach that the PEO binder material has good ion conductivity.
Wang, in the field of (abstract) sodium ion electrolyte materials, discloses at [0039] that polyethylene oxide is one of a list of candidates for use as a polymer electrolyte. Because PEO is disclosed as a polymer electrolyte, a person of ordinary skill would expect that it has good ion conductivity and can act as an ion conductive assistant. 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 a porous positive active material layer comprising PEO (as taught by Piwko) and having good ion conductivity (as taught by Wang) in order to achieve Ikejiri’s goal of improved sodium ion condition. Ikejiri and Piwko do not explicitly teach the electrode mixture further comprising pores which have a pore size of 0.1 µm to 100 µm.
Wang further discloses [0037] Na3Zr2PSi2O12 (NASICON)-polymer composite structures electrolyte matrices…. In one aspect, an appropriate polymeric material functions as a host matrix for NASICON particles. “Owing to its intrinsic properties, the NASICON particles serve as ionic conductors for Na+, with the polymeric matrix supplementing sodium ion.” At [0061] Wang suggests the use of nanoparticle solid electrolyte powders between 200 nm and 600 nm (0.2 µm to 0.6 µm), this falls within the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 100 µm.
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 add the NASICON particles of Wang as the ion conductive assistant for use in the positive electrode mixture of modified Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining an electrode mixture having improved ion conductivity.
Regarding the diameter of the pores, a person of ordinary skill would understand the minimum size of a pore would be the size of the smallest particle, e.g. 0.2 µm. (This falls within the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 100 µm.) That person of ordinary skill would also understand that if the amount of active material in the electrode is reduced on a volumetric or gravimetric basis, the energy density of the battery will likewise be reduced. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the pore size of the positive active material layer, in order to improve energy density of the battery while making sure the electrolyte particles still fit, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ikejiri teaches [0024] the motivation of improved sodium ion conductivity. However, Ikejiri does not explicitly teach the explicitly teach the electrode mixture further comprising a solid electrolyte powder having a particle size of 0.1 µm to 100 µm as an ion conductive assistant.
Piwko, in the field of (abstract) energy storage, discloses [0050] that the active cathode material may be porous (“connected pores and passages”) and at [0052] that the active material may include a binder material (e.g. …, polyethylene oxide…). Examiner notes that PEO is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. Piwko discloses [0007-0009] that this creates a successful battery.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the polyethylene oxide of Piwko to the electrode mixture of Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful battery. However, Piwko does not explicitly teach that the PEO binder material has good ion conductivity.
Wang, in the field of (abstract) sodium ion electrolyte materials, discloses at [0039] that polyethylene oxide is one of a list of candidates for use as a polymer electrolyte. Because PEO is disclosed as a polymer electrolyte, a person of ordinary skill would expect that it has good ion conductivity and can act as an ion conductive assistant. 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 a porous positive active material layer comprising PEO (as taught by Piwko) and having good ion conductivity (as taught by Wang) in order to achieve Ikejiri’s goal of improved sodium ion condition. Ikejiri and Piwko do not explicitly teach the electrode mixture further comprising a solid electrolyte powder having a particle size of 0.1 µm to 100 µm as an ion conductive assistant.
Wang, further discloses [0037] Na3Zr2PSi2O12 (NASICON)-polymer composite structures electrolyte matrices…. In one aspect, an appropriate polymeric material functions as a host matrix for NASICON particles. “Owing to its intrinsic properties, the NASICON particles serve as ionic conductors for Na+, with the polymeric matrix supplementing sodium ion.” At [0061] Wang suggests the use of nanoparticle solid electrolyte powders between 200 nm and 600 nm (0.2 µm to 0.6 µm), this falls within the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 100 µm.
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 add the NASICON particles of Wang as the ion conductive assistant for use in the positive electrode mixture of modified Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining an electrode mixture having improved ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 18, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ikejiri teaches [0024] the motivation of improved sodium ion conductivity. Ikejiri does not explicitly teach wherein the surfaces of the pores are covered with the solid electrolyte powder as an ion conductive assistant.
Piwko, in the field of (abstract) energy storage, discloses [0050] that the active cathode material may be porous (“connected pores and passages”) and at [0052] that the active material may include a binder material (e.g. …, polyethylene oxide…). Examiner notes that PEO is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. Piwko discloses [0007-0009] that this creates a successful battery.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the polyethylene oxide of Piwko to the electrode mixture of Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful battery. However, Piwko does not explicitly teach that the PEO binder material has good ion conductivity.
Wang, in the field of (abstract) sodium ion electrolyte materials, discloses at [0039] that polyethylene oxide is one of a list of candidates for use as a polymer electrolyte. Because PEO is disclosed as a polymer electrolyte, a person of ordinary skill would expect that it has good ion conductivity and can act as an ion conductive assistant. 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 a porous positive active material layer comprising PEO (as taught by Piwko) and having good ion conductivity (as taught by Wang) in order to achieve Ikejiri’s goal of improved sodium ion condition. Ikejiri and Piwko combined do not explicitly teach wherein the surfaces of the pores are covered with the solid electrolyte powder as an ion conductive assistant.
Wang further discloses [0037] Na3Zr2PSi2O12 (NASICON)-polymer composite structures electrolyte matrices…. In one aspect, an appropriate polymeric material functions as a host matrix for NASICON particles. “Owing to its intrinsic properties, the NASICON particles serve as ionic conductors for Na+, with the polymeric matrix supplementing sodium ion.” At [0061] Wang suggests the use of nanoparticles solid electrolyte powders between 200 nm and 600 nm (0.2 µm to 0.6 µm).
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 add the NASICON particles of Wang into the pores of the positive electrode mixture of modified Ikejiri, for use as the ion conductive assistant for use in the positive electrode mixture of modified Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining an electrode mixture having improved ion conductivity. Examiner notes the because the nanoparticles inside the pores is rendered obvious, this meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of wherein the surfaces of the pores are covered with the solid electrolyte powder as an ion conductive assistant.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri (US 20170217774 A1), as set forth in claims 1 and 8, above, and in further view of Khodabakhshi (Khodabakhshi, S., Fulvio, P. F., & Andreoli, E. (2020). Carbon black reborn: Structure and chemistry for renewable energy harnessing. Carbon, 162, 604-649.)
Regarding claims 9-10, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Ikejiri does not disclose the primary particle size or specific surface area of the powdered carbon.
Khodabakshi, in the field of carbon black and conductive additives, discloses (Table 1) Cabot Corporation Black Pearls™ which is a furnace black having a primary particle diameter of 52-60 nm and a specific surface area of 30 m2/g, which falls within the claimed ranges of 1 nm to 100 nm and 20 m2/g to 500 m2/g. 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 this specific carbon black product because Table 1 lists it as suitable for use as a conductive additive, with a reasonable expectation of creating an electrode mixture with an appropriate level of electron conductivity.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 - 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri (US 20170217774 A1), as set forth in claims 1 and 8, above, and in further view of Piwko (US 20200052304 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches [0034] the need for improved electron conductivity, however Ikejiri does not explicitly teach wherein the carbon is fibrous carbon having a fiber size within the range of 1 nm to 300 nm.
Piwko, in the field of (abstract) energy storage, discloses [0052] that the active material may be provided as part of a mixture (for example … active cathode material layer), where the mixture may include or have been formed from: the active material, one or more than one conductive additive (for example conductive black, carbon nanotubes and/or carbon fibers), and/or one or more than one binder material (e.g. …, polyethylene oxide…).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add the conductive additive carbon fiber or nanotube of Piwko to the electrode mixture of Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving electron conductivity.
Regarding claim 13, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches [0034] the need for improved electron conductivity, however Ikejiri does not explicitly teach wherein the carbon is a combination of powdered carbon and fibrous carbon, or a combination of powdered carbon and flaky carbon, or a combination of powdered carbon, fibrous carbon and flaky carbon.
Piwko, in the field of (abstract) energy storage, discloses [0052] that the active material may be provided as part of a mixture (for example … active cathode material layer), where the mixture may include or have been formed from: the active material, one or more than one conductive additive (for example conductive black, carbon nanotubes and/or carbon fibers), and/or one or more than one binder material (e.g. …, polyethylene oxide…).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add both carbon fiber and powdered carbon (conductive carbon black) of Piwko to the electrode mixture of Ikejiri, as it represents one of a finite number of solutions to the problem of electron conductivity, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving electron conductivity.
Regarding claim 14, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, However, Ikejiri does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode mixture does not comprise a resin binder.
Piwko, in the field of (abstract) energy storage, discloses [0052] that the active material may be provided as part of a mixture (for example … active cathode material layer), where the mixture may include or have been formed from: the active material, one or more than one conductive additive (for example conductive black, carbon nanotubes and/or carbon fibers), and/or one or more than one binder material (e.g. …, polyethylene oxide…). Examiner notes that polyethylene oxide is not a resin.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to use the polyethylene oxide of Piwko for the electrode mixture of Ikejiri, based on Piwko’s suggestion that PEO is a successful binder, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful electrode.
Regarding claim 15, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Ikejiri teaches [0024] the motivation of improved sodium ion conductivity. However, Ikejiri is silent on porosity and does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode mixture is porous comprising pores, and wherein the electrode mixture has a porosity within the range of 5% to 50%.
Piwko, in the field of (abstract) energy storage, discloses [0050] that active cathode material is desired to have high specific surface area including connected pores and passages. Piwko discloses that the active material layer may have a porosity of about 20% to about 40% (falls within the claimed range).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to add select the porosity range of Piwko, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the desired high specific surface area.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri (US 20170217774 A1), as set forth in claim 8, above, and in further view of Khodabakhshi (Khodabakhshi, S., Fulvio, P. F., & Andreoli, E. (2020). Carbon black reborn: Structure and chemistry for renewable energy harnessing. Carbon, 162, 604-649.) and Landa (US 20120153772 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches [0062] the use of conductive carbon black to improve electrical conduction. Ikejiri does not explicitly teach the use of flaky carbon having a thickness within the range of 1 nm to 300 nm to improve electrical conduction.
Khodabakshi, in the field of carbon black and conductive additives, teaches the use of KS-6 graphite as a conductive additive in conjunction with carbon black. Examiner notes that KS-6 graphite is a form of flaky carbon as in the instant claim, and Ketjien black is a form of conductive carbon black as taught by Ikejiri. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to consider using KS-6 graphite in combination with the carbon black as taught by Khodabakshi, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving electrical conductivity of the positive electrode. Khodabakshi does not explicitly teach that the flaky carbon has a thick flaky carbon has a thickness within the range of 1 nm to 300 nm.
Landa discloses [0251] that “conventionally milled graphite, having an average size of about 0.5-10 µm and average thickness in the range of about 1-100 nm (prepared from Asbury graphite 3763 having an unmilled flake size in the range of about 25-75 µm)”. Based on the evidence of Landa, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the KS-6 flake graphite rendered obvious by Khodabakshi to fall within claimed range, thus rendering obvious the instant claim limitation.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri (US 20170217774 A1), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Inoue (US 20130266858 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches electrode mixture of any one of wherein the electrode mixture has a thickness of 10 µm to 5000 µm. ([0062] doctor blade with an aperture of 75 µm. However, Ikejiri does not disclose the electrode having a total weight per unit area of 1 mg/cm2 to 5000 mg/cm2.
Inoue, in the field of (abstract and [0033]) alkali-metal batteries, discloses at Tables 1-3 batteries with a cathode total weight per area of 8.2 mg/cm2 to 11.7 mg/cm2 (falls within the claimed range). Inoue contemplates at [0260-0276] the importance of the ion diffusion coefficient with respect to cycle performance. 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 a cathode weight within the range taught by Inoue, in order obtain decreased diffusion distances for the sodium ion and therefore improved cycle performance, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri (US 20170217774 A1), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Wang (US 20140186719 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Ikejiri teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches the electrode mixture of any one of wherein the electrode mixture is used as a positive electrode and/or a negative electrode in a non-aqueous electrolyte storage device, and wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte storage device ([0038] ASSB with solid electrolyte) is an all-solid-state sodium storage battery (abstract) comprising the electrode mixture and ([0062] a current collector. However, Ikejiri does not explicitly teach that the solid electrolyte comprises an organic solid electrolyte and an inorganic solid electrolyte.
Wang, in the field of (abstract) sodium-containing electrolytes, discloses [0037] “the design and fabrication of Na3Zr2PSi2O12 (NASICON)-polymer composite structures (films, for example) as electrolyte matrices for rechargeable sodium battery with sodium metal and/or other dendrite prone anodes. In one aspect, an appropriate polymeric material functions as a host matrix for NASICON particles. Owing to its intrinsic properties, the NASICON particles serve as ionic conductors for Na+, with the polymeric matrix supplementing sodium ion conductivity while, at the same time, providing a "form" for the electrolyte matrix, to maintain the mechanical integrity of the polymeric electrolyte.”
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 polymer matrix with NASICON particles for use as the solid electrolyte for the battery of Ikejiri, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a battery having an electrolyte with mechanical integrity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 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 5/4/2026
Prosecution Insights