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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 9/4/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no search burden exists because claims 8–14 are directed to the method of manufacturing the apparatus of claims 1–7 and, thus, belong to the same field of invention. This is not found persuasive because as explained in the restriction requirement dated 07/08/25, the inventions are classified in separate sub-classes of H01M 10 and are distinct because claim 1’s apparatus may be manufactured via different process than claim 8. Such creates a search burden by necessitating different search queries for the process (e.g., searching for “over-capacity of the positive electrode”) than for the apparatus.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/4/25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/6/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, Foreign Patent Documents 1 and 2 are missing English language concise explanations of relevancy. Non-Patent literature Documents 3 and 6 do not appear to have been provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein with respect to the struck-through documents have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, lines 1 and 2, “the positive electrode comprises an active material with a redox potential within the electrochemical stability window of aqueous electrolyte” is suggested to read “the positive electrode comprises an active material with has a redox potential within the electrochemical stability window of the aqueous electrolyte” for redundancy and proper antecedence based on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, lines 1 and 2, “the negative electrode comprises an active material with a redox potential within the electrochemical stability window of aqueous electrolyte” is suggested to read “the negative electrode comprises an active material with has a redox potential within the electrochemical stability window of the aqueous electrolyte” for redundancy and proper antecedence based on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites “a positive electrode containing an active material that can reversibly insert and extract monovalent and multivalent ions such as lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, or zinc; a positive electrode containing an active material that can reversibly insert and extract monovalent and multivalent ions such as lithium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, or zinc” (lines 2–5). The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The instant specification’s p. 2, ¶ 3, describes several monovalent and divalent intercalatable ions, including Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, or Zn, though such is exemplary (by using “such as”) and, thus, non-limiting to the ions. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require, as each active material, the ability to reversibly insert and extract any monovalent and multivalent ions, as appears consistent with at least p. 2 of the specification.
Claim 1 further recites “an electrolyte solution … further comprising a strongly reducing electrolyte additive” (lines 6–8). The term “strongly reducing” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification is devoid of a special definition for “strongly reducing”, and neither the claims nor spec. provides a reference oxidation/reduction potential by which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascertain a “strongly reducing” additive. Accordingly, the recited “strongly reducing electrolyte additive” is considered indefinite.
The specification’s p. 7, ¶ 4, lists hydrazine, hydrazine hydrate, sodium borohydride, and sodium aluminum hydride as exemplary “strongly reducing electrolyte additives”, though, again, this list is exemplary and, thus, non-limiting. Therefore, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require any reasonably reductive electrolyte additive, which appears consistent with p. 7.
The dependent claims fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessells et al. (US 20180191033).
Regarding claim 1, Wessells discloses an energy storage cell (cell of Ex. A8, ¶ 0213) comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode each containing an active material that can reversibly insert and extract monovalent and multivalent ions (transition metal cyanide coordination compound (TMCCC) in each electrode (¶ 0213), which, as seen in the instant specification’s description of hexacyanometalate active materials (i.e., TMCCC) on p. 2, ¶ 3, are able to reversibly insert and extract monovalent and multivalent ions, which is further seen in Wessells, ¶ 0121); an electrolyte solution disposed between the positive and the negative electrode (electrolyte (necessarily between the electrodes to enable ion conduction), ¶ 0213), the electrolyte solution being an aqueous solution (by including water as cosolvent, ¶ 0213) in which a monovalent ion salt is dissolved (sodium perchlorate, ¶ 0213); and further comprising a strongly reducing electrolyte additive (oxalic acid (¶ 0213), which is reasonably strongly reducing in that it is well known to reduce higher-order metal compounds and is recognized as a reducing agent in ¶ 0204).
As seen in ¶ 0213, Wessells exemplifies an apparent solvent system of 5 wt% water, 20 wt% acetonitrile, and 75% sulfolane, which converts to 0.3 mol% water based on these compounds’ molar mases. Thus, Wessells fails to explicitly disclose that the aqueous solution has a water content of 50 mol% or more.
More broadly, however, Wessells discloses that water may be included as a minority cosolvent in an amount greater than 2 wt% or vol%—and < 50 wt% or vol%—so as not to be considered a contaminant (¶ 0116). Further, as seen in other embodiments, adding water to organic solvents like acetonitrile improves reaction kinetics and yields a higher peak current (¶ 0131). Thus, Wessells appears to allow some quantity of water as a cosolvent in the electrolyte at at least 2 wt%/vol% and < 50 wt%/vol% in an effort to limit hydrolysis (¶ 0156) while achieving faster reaction kinetics and higher peak current (¶ 0131).
Importantly, though Wessells’s broader disclosure of at least 2 wt%/vol% and < 50 wt%/vol% is outside the recited range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges fail to overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Here, Wessells never appears to attribute inferior performance to exactly 50 mol% water compared to, e.g., 49.99999 mol% (which reasonably appears within the scope of Wessells’s broader range above), and the instant specification appears to lack criticality to 50 mol% water by never testing below this range. Thus, absent demonstrated criticality to 50 mol% or more water, the recited range appears obvious over Wessells’s at least 2 wt%/vol% and < 50 wt%/vol%.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wessells discloses the energy storage cell of claim 1, wherein each of the positive electrode active material and the negative electrode comprises an active material with has a redox potential within the electrochemical stability window of the aqueous electrolyte (see second/high-potential and first/low-potential TMCCC electrode materials of sodium iron manganese hexaferrocyanate and sodium hexacyanomanganate (used in Ex. A8, ¶ 0213) in ¶ 0206, where high-potential material would act as reductant upon discharge and, thus, be the negative electrode, while low-potential material would act as oxidant upon discharge and, thus, be the positive electrode); as seen in, e.g., ¶ 0151 as well as ¶ 0213, such TMCCCs are paired to be within the stability window/limit of the aqueous electrolyte).
Regarding claim 4, Wessells discloses the energy storage cell of claim 1.
As seen in Ex. A8, Wessells exemplifies a reducing agent of oxalic acid and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose that the electrolyte additive is one of hydrazine, hydrazine hydrate, sodium borohydride or sodium aluminum hydride.
More broadly, though, Wessells discloses many possible reducing agents, including not only oxalic acid but also sodium borohydride or hydrazine (¶ 0204).
As Wessells recognizes oxalic acid and sodium borohydride or hydrazine as equivalent reductant additives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Wessells’s oxalic acid with sodium borohydride or hydrazine with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful electrolytic reduction.
Regarding claim 5, Wessells discloses the energy storage cell of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte further comprises an organic solvent (e.g., sulfolane or acetonitrile in Ex. A8, ¶ 0213).
Although neither organic solvent is at a concentration of 50 mol% or less with respect to water, again, Wessells broadly allows the cosolvent alongside water (“majority solvent”) to be ≥ 50 wt% or vol% (¶ 0116), which appears close enough to 50 mol% or less with respect to water that a prima facie case of obviousness exists because one skilled in the art would have expected the prior art’s solvent system to display the same properties as the instant solvent system (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Again, Wessells never appears to attribute inferior performance to 50 mol% organic solvent versus, e.g., 50.000000001% (as “majority solvent” appears to allow based on ¶ 0116), and the instant specification also appears to lack criticality to this range by never testing above 50 mol% organic solvent. Thus, absent demonstrated criticality to ≤ 50 mol% organic solvent with respect to water, this range appears obvious over Wessells’s broader disclosure of ≥ 50 wt% or vol% organic cosolvent.
Regarding claim 7, Wessells discloses the energy storage cell of claim 1, wherein the positive and negative electrodes further comprise electronically conductive filler and binder material (carbon black and PVDF, respectively, ¶ 0172).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessells et al. (US 20180191033), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Sodium Vanadium Titanium Phosphate Electrode for Symmetric Sodium-Ion Batteries with High Power and Long Lifespan.
Regarding claim 6, Wessels discloses all the limitations as set forth above. As seen above, Wessells exemplifies sodium TMCCCs as each active material but discloses many other possible, non-limiting active materials, including higher-order sodium oxides (¶ 0117), but Wessells fails to disclose that the positive electrode and negative electrode active material is Na2VTi(PO4)3.
Wang teaches an analogous aqueous battery (p. 2, right col., ¶ 2), where each of the positive and negative active materials is Na2VTi(PO4)3 (Id.). Wang teaches that using this symmetric electrode structure achieves high-rate charge-discharge and ultralong lifespan unattainable in conventional sodium batteries (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wang’s Na2VTi(PO4)3 alongside or in place of Wessells’s TMCCCs as each of the positive and negative active materials with the reasonable expectation of achieving high-rate charge-discharge and ultralong lifespan, as taught by Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-5pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 5712727769. 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.
/JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/30/2026
