Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/334,129

RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES WITH ALKALI METAL ION CATHODES, ALUMINUM METAL-BASED ANODES AND DISPLACEMENT ELECTROLYTE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 13, 2023
Examiner
AMPONSAH, OSEI K
Art Unit
1752
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sila Nanotechnologies Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
488 granted / 680 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
748
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.1%
+26.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 680 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0082904 hereinafter Brown in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0170515 hereinafter Yushin. Regarding Claim 1, Brown teaches an aluminum battery (rechargeable battery cell) comprising: an anode that comprises aluminum metal ; a cathode that comprises a material capable of intercalating aluminum ions during a discharge cycle and deintercalating the aluminum ions during a charge cycle (i.e., cathode material includes an alkali metal); an electrolyte capable of supporting reversible deposition and stripping of aluminum at the anode, and reversible intercalation and deintercalation of aluminum at the cathode (paragraph 43); and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (paragraph 75). Brown teaches an electrolyte that comprises an ionic liquid , aluminum, and alkali metal (paragraphs 46-49 , 56 ) but does not specifically disclose that the electrolyte ionically coupl es the anode and the cathode . However, Yushin teaches a rechargeable battery (paragraph 32) that comprises an anode , a cathode , a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode , and an electrolyte that ionically coupl es the anode and the cathode (paragraphs 12, 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such electrolyte before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Yushin discloses that such configuration can provide improved performance for lithium batteries (paragraphs 7-8, 38). Regarding Claim 2, the combination teaches that the alkali metal comprises sodium (Na) or potassium (K) or bo th (paragraph 56 of Brown and paragraph 53 of Yushin). Regarding Claims 3-5, the combination teaches that the alkali metal comprises sodium ( Na ) or potassium (K) and an atomic fraction of the Na or K in all the alkali metal is about 50 at. % or more and a weight fraction of lithium (Li) in all the alkali metal is less than about 5 wt. % ( paragraph 56 of Brown and paragraph 53 of Yushin). Regarding Claim 6, the combination teaches that the electrolyte comprises a halide salt comprising aluminum (paragraph 49 of Brown and paragraph 53 of Yushin). Regarding Claims 7-8, the combination teaches that the electrolyte exhibits a melting point in a range of about 200 ° C. to about 450 ° C (paragraphs 13, 39-41 of Yushin). Regarding Claim 9, the combination teaches that the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid (paragraph 48 of Brown). Regarding Claims 10-1 2 , the combination teaches that the electrolyte comprises a solvent composition and the electrolyte is fully or partially solid during at least a portion of the charging and/or discharging of the rechargeable battery cell (paragraphs 47, 61 of Brown and paragraph 53 of Yushin) . Regarding Claims 13-16, the combination teaches that the separator membrane comprises ceramic particles , the cathode active material comprises a layered metal oxide , and wherein the concentration of the Al in the electrolyte increases during the discharging; a concentration of the alkali metal ions in the electrolyte decreases during the discharging; the concentration of the Al in the electrolyte decreases during the charging; and the concentration of the alkali metal ions in the electrolyte increases during the charging (see Brown and Yushin). Regarding Claim 17, the combination teaches an energy storage system, comprising: a plurality of the battery cells ( see Brown and Yushin) . Regarding Claims 18-20, the combination teaches a method of making the rechargeable battery cel l above (see Brown and Yushin) , the method comprising: providing an anode comprising aluminum (Al) metal or an Al alloy; providing a cathode comprising a cathode active material comprising at least one alkali metal; melt-infiltrating an electrolyte into (a) the anode, or (b) the cathode, or (c) the anode and the cathode; providing a separator layer on at least one of the anode and the cathode ; and assembling the rechargeable battery cell comprising the anode and the cathode, wherein: the electrolyte ionically couples the anode and the cathode in the rechargeable battery cell; and the electrolyte comprises Al and ions of the at least one alkali metal. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3446 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8760 . 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. /OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 13, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586819
Non-Aqueous Electrolyte and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580223
STABILIZED SOLID GARNET ELECTROLYTE AND METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573615
All-Solid-State Battery and Method of Manufacturing the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573717
MICROPOROUS MEMBRANES, SEPARATORS, LITHIUM BATTERIES, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567648
EXPLOSIVE ENVIRONMENT NEUTRALIZATION IN CHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 680 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month