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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation “substantially only”. The word “substantially” suggests that a large degree of the material is BiNi but other materials can be present, in a small degree, while the word “only” suggests that is exclusively formed of BiNi. Clarification or amendment to the claim is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0220196).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5 and 12, Jang teaches a battery (i.e., sodium metal-sulfur battery) (paragraph [0016]) comprising:
a first electrode (i.e., anode) (paragraph [0065]) (see figure 2);
a second electrode (i.e., cathode) (paragraph [0065]) (see figure 2); and
an electrolyte solution (paragraph [0065]),
wherein
the first electrode comprises:
a base material that is a porous body (i.e., Cu foil, Ni foam, porous layer of nanofilaments) (paragraph [0024]) (see figure 2), and
an active material layer (paragraph [0040]) located on a surface of the base material (see figure 2), and the active material layer contains an alloy containing Bi and Ni (i.e., alloys of Bi, Ni) (paragraph [0040]) (Note: alloying bismuth and nickel produce the specific intermetallic structure of BiNi).
Regarding claim 6, Jang the active material layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of LiBi (i.e., Bi and lithiated versions thereof) (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Jang does not teach the active material layer contains a solid electrolyte which reads on the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches the base material contains Ni (i.e., Cu foil, Ni foam, porous layer of nanofilaments) (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Jang teaches the electrolyte solution contains a vinylene carbonate solvent and a lithium salt dissolved in the solvent (paragraph [0099]-[0100]).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0220196) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Berthelot et al. (NPL, 20171).
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches the battery as described above in claims 1-2 including the BiNi but does not explicitly teach the BiNi has a crystal structure having a space group which belongs to C2/m.
Berthelot teaches an active material including BiNi (i.e., Li3Ni2BiO6) with a C2/m structure having outstanding properties and applicability in batteries (page 5377, 5384).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang BiNi to have a C2/m structure in order to have increased properties, including paramagnetic and antiferromagnetic behaviors, as suggested by Berthelot.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0220196) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawase et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0234861).
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches the battery as described above in claims 1 including the active material layer but does not teach the layer is a heat-treated plating layer.
Kawase, directed to an electrode (abstract), teaches an active material layer that is formed as a heat-treated plating layer (paragraph [0038]). Kawase teaches such improve the characteristics of the alloy formed of the active material (paragraph [0038]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active material layer of Jang to be a heat-treated plating layer, as suggested by Kawase, in order to improve the characteristics of the active material.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Liu, Binder-free Integration of Bismuth Nanoflakes onto Nickel Foams for Sodium-ion batteries, Royal Society of Chemistry, Dec 2017. Liu teaches an active material comprising BiNi (page 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
1 Berthelot et al., New Layered Compounds with Honeycomb Ordering: Li3Ni2BiO3, Li3NiM’BiO6, (M’=M, Cu, Zn), and the Delafossite Ag3Ni2BiO6, Inorganic Chemistry, ACS Publications, 2012, 51, 5377-5385.
Prosecution Insights