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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0257675 hereinafter Kang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0295238 hereinafter Chae.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10-11, Kang teaches a sodium battery (paragraph 213) comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator; and an aqueous electrolytic solution that includes water and metal salt (paragraphs 50-51), wherein the positive electrode comprises a sodium metal compound (paragraphs 52-54), the negative electrode comprises a carbon-based material including activated carbon (paragraphs 58-59), and the concentration of the active salts in the electrolyte is 40 M (paragraphs 78-79).
Kang further teaches a mixture of added salts including NaCl, NaNO3, NaClO4, and NaFSI (paragraphs 66-67) and discloses that a specific type of added salt (i.e., NaFSI) has a concentration of 8 to 20 M (paragraph 78). In addition, the selection of a known material (i.e., NaFSI with a concentration of 20 M), which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Chae further teaches a sodium secondary battery comprising: a metal anode and an anolyte (i.e., anode chamber); a cathode and catholyte (i.e., cathode chamber); and a solid electrolyte separator disposed between the anode and cathode (see figure 5). Chae teaches that any solvent can be used and also disclose that the organic solvent can be carbonate-based solvent (paragraph 89) and the solid electrolyte comprises NASICON-type ceramics such as Na3Zr2Si2PO12 (paragraph 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such electrolyte salt mixture before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kang discloses that such configuration can form electrolyte having improved ion conductivity and battery with high energy density (paragraphs 78-80).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143, A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (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