PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SODIUM AND LITHIUM BATTERIES
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 without traverse of Group I, Species 1, Subspecies 1b (Claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 19-22) in the reply filed on12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
NOTE: Applicant appears to have elected “Subspecies 2a” by mistake while referencing claim 13 which was restricted as Subspecies 1b. The Examiner has assumed this is a typographical error.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlaikjer et al. (US 5,182,177).
Regarding claim 1, Schlaikjer et al. teach an electrochemical device (Abstract discloses primary cells.) comprising:
an anode comprising sodium or lithium (Col. 3, lines 10-20 disclose a lithium anode.);
a cathode comprising a carbonaceous material (Col. 3, lines 10-20 disclose cathode comprising carbon.);
a separator (Col. 3, lines 7-9 disclose the use of separators as an inherent component of batteries.); and
an electrolyte comprising a metal halide, a fluorinated electrolyte compound, and thionyl chloride (Col. 3, lines 35-38; 55-61 discloses lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate reacted with either 1M LiAlCl4 or AlCl3 in thionyl chloride.);
wherein the electrochemical device is a secondary battery (Col. 3, lines 3-8; 10-15 disclose a battery and primary cell structures.).
Regarding claim 2, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1, wherein the metal halide is AlCl3, NaCl, LiCl, GaCl3, or a mixture of any two or more thereof (Col. 3, lines 35-38; 55-61 discloses lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate reacted with either 1M LiAlCl4 or AlCl3 in thionyl chloride.).
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlaikjer et al. (US 5,182,177).
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the carbonaceous material is produced from heat-treating the carbonaceous material in the presence of CO2 gas, water vapor, oxygen, air, or a combination of any two or more thereof.
This is merely an example of a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113 I: PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (
Regarding claim 5, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach where the heat-treating is conducted at a temperature of 500 to 1100 °C.
This is merely an example of a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113 I: PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Claims 3, 6, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlaikjer et al. (US 5,182,177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (US 2011/0052998 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the carbonaceous material is elected from the group consisting of amorphous carbon nanospheres, acetylene black, activated carbon, graphene, nanographene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, carbon foam, carbon fibers, graphite particles, nano-graphite particles, or a combination of any two or more thereof.
Liang et al. teach a lithium anode (Paragraph 0071), an electrolyte comprising organic electrolyte materials such as lithium bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (Paragraph 0071), and cathode having a bimodal porous carbon component (Abstract) which is composed of WVA-1500, an activated carbon. (Paragraph 0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode carbonaceous material of Schlaikjer with the carbon material of Liang in order to minimize or altogether prevent the irreversible deposition of lithium sulfide on the lithium anode of the battery (Paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 6, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the carbonaceous material has a surface area of about 1000 m2/g to about 4000 m2/g, and a porosity of about 0.5-6 cm3/g.
Liang et al. teach a lithium anode (Paragraph 0071), an electrolyte comprising organic electrolyte materials such as lithium bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (Paragraph 0071), and cathode having a bimodal porous carbon component (Abstract) which is composed of WVA-1500, an activated carbon. (Paragraph 0071). Further, the surface area of the carbon component can range from 300-5000 m2/g (Paragraph 0030. Further, paragraph 0071 discloses a surface area for the WVA-1500 activated carbon of 1750 m2/g.) and have a pore volume ranging from 0.5-2.2 cm3/g (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode carbonaceous material of Schlaikjer with the carbon material of Liang in order to minimize or altogether prevent the irreversible deposition of lithium sulfide on the lithium anode of the battery (Paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 7, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the carbonaceous material is microporous and has a microporosity of at least 0.5 cm3/g
Liang et al. teach a lithium anode (Paragraph 0071), an electrolyte comprising organic electrolyte materials such as lithium bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide (Paragraph 0071), and cathode having a bimodal porous carbon component (Abstract) which is composed of WVA-1500, an activated carbon. (Paragraph 0071). Further, the surface area of the carbon component can range from 300-5000 m2/g (Paragraph 0030. Further, paragraph 0071 discloses a surface area for the WVA-1500 activated carbon of 1750 m2/g.) and have a pore volume ranging from 0.5-2.2 cm3/g (Paragraph 0028 discloses a pore volume of 0.5-2.2 cm3/g. Further, paragraph 0071 discloses the WVA-1500 activated carbon is microporous.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode carbonaceous material of Schlaikjer with the carbon material of Liang in order to advantageously retain sulfur via the micropores which minimizes lithium sulfide build up on the anode and which extends the useful life of the battery (Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 20, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the carbon material in the cathode is microporous and not purely mesoporous or microporous (Paragraph 0071 discloses a bimodal porous carbon component having mesoporous and microporous carbon.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode carbonaceous material of Schlaikjer with the carbon material of Liang in order to advantageously retain sulfur via the micropores which minimizes lithium sulfide build up on the anode and which extends the useful life of the battery, while at the same time promoting a high energy output by facilitating lithium-ion transport via the mesopores (Paragraph 0012).
Claims 8-10, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlaikjer et al. (US 5,182,177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (WO 2017/113234 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the carbonaceous material is packed on a substrate of Ni or stainless-steel foil or foam with or without a PTFE polymer binder.
Tang et al. teach a sodium-ion battery comprising a carbon cathode (Abstract). Further, the cathode formed on a nickel conductive material (Claim 9). Further, Tang does not disclose the addition of a PTFE polymer binder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schlaikjer with Tang in order to reduce cost and improve battery energy density.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 14, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the electrolyte comprises up to about 10 wt% of the fluorinated electrolyte compound; wherein the fluorinated electrolyte compound comprises an ammonium, alkyl ammonium, or alkali metal salt of a bis(oxalato)borate, dihalo(oxalate)borate, bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide,bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide, or a combination of any two or more thereof; or wherein the electrolyte comprises about 0 wt% to about 2 wt% sodium bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide, and about 0 wt% to about 8 wt% sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide.
Tang et al. teach a sodium-ion battery comprising a carbon cathode (Abstract). Further, the electrolyte can comprise up to about 10 wt% of the fluorinated electrolyte compound; wherein the fluorinated electrolyte compound comprises an ammonium, alkyl ammonium, or alkali metal salt of a bis(oxalato)borate, dihalo(oxalate)borate, bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide,bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide, or a combination of any two or more thereof; or wherein the electrolyte comprises about 0 wt% to about 2 wt% sodium bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide, and about 0 wt% to about 8 wt% sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (Page 5, last paragraph-Page 6, first paragraph discloses the electrolyte can comprise sodium trifluoromethanesulfonylimide at a concentration of 0.1-10 mol/L.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schlaikjer with Tang in order to reduce cost and improve battery energy density.
Regarding claim 19, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the separator comprises a glass fiber paper, a quartz fiber paper, a porous glass membrane, a porous glass filter, a porous quartz membrane, a porous quartz filter, porous PTFE membranes or a combination of any two or more thereof.
Tang et al. teach a sodium-ion battery comprising a carbon cathode (Abstract). Further, the separator can comprise glass fiber paper (Claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schlaikjer with Tang in order to reduce cost and improve battery energy density.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlaikjer et al. (US 5,182,177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhavaraju et al. (US 2014/0356654 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the anode comprises sodium.
Bhavaraju et al. teach a hybrid sodium battery for an electric vehicle (Abstract) wherein the anode comprises sodium (Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of Schlaikjer with the anode of Bhavaraju due to sodium being more plentiful than lithium and being able to transition from solid form at lower temperature to molten form at higher temperatures.
Regarding claim 22, Schlaikjer et al. teach the electrochemical device of claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the secondary battery is functional down to about -80 °C.
Bhavaraju et al. teach a hybrid sodium battery for an electric vehicle (Abstract) wherein the anode comprises sodium (Claim 1). Further, the sodium battery is functional for a wide temperature range from -30-130°C. (Paragraph 0029).
While Bhavaraju et al. do not teach down to about -80 °C, this is a matter of routine optimization. MPEP 2144.05 A: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of Schlaikjer with the anode of Bhavaraju due to sodium being more plentiful than lithium and being able to transition from solid form at lower temperature to molten form at higher temperatures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 13 discloses subject matter that is not disclosed in the prior art. Searches did not disclose art that taught electrolyte comprising about 0.5 M to about 6 M GaCl3 and 0 M to about 6 M NaCl in thionyl chloride.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 January 7th, 2026