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 Ia, claims 1, 2, and 4 in the reply filed on 5/7/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eng et al. (WO 2021/040622 A1, hereinafter Eng, cited by applicant) in view of Wan et al. ("Diversities of stoichiometry and electrical conductivity in sodium sulfides," Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Vol. 7, pp 16472-16478, 6/17/19, hereinafter Wan).
Re Claim 1. Eng teaches a cathode (pure S-PAN cathode, P19/L15-31) for a sodium/sulfur (NaS) battery, the cathode comprising polysodium-sulfide polyacrylonitrile (NaxS-PAN, 2=x) (P19/L15-31).
Eng fails to specifically teach that x ≥ 3.
The research of Wan encompasses stoichiometry and electrical conductivity in sodium sulfides. Wan teaches Na3S, x=3 (P16475).
In view of Wan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Eng to employ Na3S, since Wan teaches the advantage of using it, which is for higher capacity (P16477).
Re Claim 2. The combination teaches wherein the cathode comprises no other additives other than polyacrylonitrile, sulfur, and sodium (Eng, P19/L15-31).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eng in view of Wan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (KR 10-1656406 B1, hereinafter Ahn, cited by applicant).
The combination teaches wherein the cathode has a structure in which sulfur and sodium are bonded with polyacrylonitrile (Eng, P19/L15-31), but fails to specifically teaches that polyacrylonitrile is web-shaped.
The invention of Ahn encompasses electrode and battery. Ahn teaches that teaches that polyacrylonitrile is web-shaped (P3 & 5).
In view of Ahn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Eng in view of Wan to have polyacrylonitrile a web-shaped, since using a well-known shape of polyacrylonitrile is within purview of one skill in the art.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights