DETAILED OFFICIAL 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: claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 26 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application, claims 15-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-14 are under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s Specification are to the published application US 2025/0105341 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-3, in each claim, “…an anode zeolite layer, a cathode zeolite layer and a separator zeolite layer” constitutes inconsistent antecedent basis relative to each species already being introduced in claim 1, which hinders the readability of the claims. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “…[[an]]the anode zeolite layer, [[a]]the cathode zeolite layer, and [[a]]the separator zeolite layer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, “…based on a total weight of the anode active layer or a total weight of the cathode active layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the amount of zeolite particles in the anode active layer may be based on a total weight of the cathode active layer and/or if the amount of zeolite particles in the cathode active layer may be based on a total weight of the anode active layer. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “…based on a total weight of the anode active layer or a total weight of the cathode active layer, respectively.”
Appropriate action 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al. (US 2021/0159493 A1; “Xiao”).
Regarding claim 1, Xiao discloses an electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions (a sodium ion battery) [element 20, 0054, FIG. 1], has similar components as a lithium-metal battery, but replaces the lithium and lithium ions with sodium and sodium ions in corresponding components [0054]. The sodium ion battery comprises a negative electrode, i.e. an anode (an anode) [element 22, 0054, FIG. 1] that is coated with a negative electrode active material (the anode comprises an anode active layer) [0054], and a positive electrode, i.e. a cathode (a cathode) [element 24, 0054, FIG. 1], that is coated with a positive electrode active material (the cathode comprises a cathode active layer) [0054]. Additionally, the sodium ion battery comprises a separator, i.e. a microporous polymeric separator, including, inter alia a multi-layered structured porous film (the separator comprises a porous film) [0054], and an electrolyte (an electrolyte) [0054].
The negative electrode active material and/or the positive electrode active material has a mesoporous film provided as an electrode coating on one or both sides, wherein the mesoporous film is made from a precursor zeolite-based powder (at least one of the anode active layer, the cathode active layer or the separator have an anode zeolite layer, a cathode zeolite layer or a separator zeolite layer respectively disposed thereon) [0070-0073]. The precursor zeolite-based powder may be, inter alia zeolite A, zeolite X, zeolite Y, and/or ZSM-5 [0071], and may include sodium oxide [0071]. The mesoporous film has a porosity of 5-50%. A method of forming the zeolite layers include mixing the zeolite material with an aqueous solution to drive sodium ion exchange, and subjecting it to a wash step to remove residual compounds [0071].
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.
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 2-4, 6-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao as applied to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), in view of Xiao et al. (US 2020/0403204 A1; “Xiao ‘204”) and Li et al. (PRX Energy, 1, 031001, 2022; “Li”).
Regarding claim 2, Xiao discloses the sodium ion battery set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. To reiterate with emphasis, Xiao discloses an electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions [element 20, 0054, FIG. 1], has similar components as a lithium-metal battery, but replaces the lithium and lithium ions with sodium and sodium ions in corresponding components.
Xiao remains silent regarding the anode zeolite layer, the cathode zeolite layer, and the separator zeolite layer all have a same composition (see claim objection above for claim interpretation).
Xiao ‘204 is directed towards a lithium-ion battery [0045] comprising a cathode, an anode [0003, 0045], and a ceramic-coating separator [element 200, 0060-0064]. Xiao ‘204 teaches that the ceramic-coating separator includes, inter alia a multi-layered structured porous film substrate [0060], wherein a powder is mixed with a binder [0067]. The powder includes a zeolite-based powder [0072], of which is, inter alia zeolite A, zeolite X, zeolite Y, and/or ZSM-5 [0011, 0022, 0073-0074], and may include sodium oxide [0075]. The ceramic-coating separator further comprises the ceramic coating disposed on one or more surfaces of the porous substrate [0063-0064, 0070], such that a first ceramic-coated surface opposes the cathode and a second ceramic-coated surface opposes the anode [0064]. The ceramic coating may have a thickness of greater than about 1 μm [0064] and less than about 10 μm [0019].
Xiao and Xiao ‘204 each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------zeolite layers. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of Xiao so that the separator has a ceramic-coating that includes a zeolite-based powder, like that of Xiao ‘204, as Xiao discloses that an electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions, has similar components as a lithium-metal battery, but replaces the lithium and lithium ions with sodium and sodium ions in corresponding components [Xiao, 0054], therefore, the modification would result in an improvement of a comparable device (MPEP 2143(I)(C)), whereby Coulombic charge capacity loss is minimized and cycle life is enhanced [Xiao ‘204, 0065-0066].
Additionally, Li is directed towards zeolite-based electrolytes [Li, Page 1] and teaches that zeolites, including ZSM-5, NaY (FAU), NaA (LTA), and NaX (FAU) [Li, Pages 6-7 and 10], have a unique porous structure and tunable surface properties [Li, Page 4]. Furthermore, Li teaches that zeolite-modified separators exhibit superior wettability and may achieve a high uptake of liquid electrolytes [Li, Pages 4]. Therefore, through the teachings of Li, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been further motivated to make the modification of Xiao in view of Xiao ‘204 set forth above in ¶26.
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have the anode, cathode, and separator each having their own respective zeolite layer, wherein the three zeolite layers would have the same composition (the anode zeolite layer, the cathode zeolite layer, and the separator zeolite layer all have a same composition), as Xiao and Xiao ‘204 each encompass similar zeolite compositions, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try all three layers with the same zeolite composition, given that there are a finite number of combinations, all three layers being the same composition, only two layers having the same composition, or all three layers having different compositions (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the modifications set forth above in the rejection of claim 2 (¶23-27) are incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
In accordance with the aforesaid teachings and modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have the anode, cathode, and separator each having their own respective zeolite layer, wherein the three zeolite layers would have different compositions (the anode zeolite layer, the cathode zeolite layer, and the separator zeolite layer all have a different composition), as Xiao and Xiao ‘204 each encompass a plurality of zeolite compositions, therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try all three layers with different zeolite composition, given that there are a finite number of combinations, all three layers being the same composition, only two layers having the same composition, or all three layers having different compositions (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the modifications set forth above in the rejection of claim 2 (¶23-27) are incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
In accordance with the aforesaid teachings and modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have the anode, cathode, and separator each having their own respective zeolite layer, wherein the three zeolite layers would comprise sodium oxide, and zeolite A, zeolite X, zeolite Y, and/or ZSM-5 (a zeolite used in the anode zeolite layer, the cathode zeolite layer and the separator zeolite layer is sodium zeolite A-NaA, sodium zeolite X-NaX, sodium zeolite Y-NaY, sodium zeolite ZSM-5, sodium clinoptilolite, or a combination thereof).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the modifications set forth above in the rejection of claim 2 (¶23-27) are incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
Xiao and Xiao ‘204 each teach that the zeolite material has an average particle size less than 1 μm [Xiao, 0071; Xiao ‘204, 0074].
In accordance with the aforesaid teachings and modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have the anode, cathode, and separator each having their own respective zeolite layer, wherein the three zeolite layers would have zeolite material having an average particle size less than 1 μm, of which is within the claimed particle size range, 100 nm-5 μm, and encompasses the D50 value, 300 nm, thereby rendering both claims obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 6 above, the modifications set forth above in the rejection of claim 2 (¶23-27) are incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
In accordance with the aforesaid teachings and modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have the anode, cathode, and separator each having their own respective zeolite layer, wherein the method of forming the zeolite layers include mixing the zeolite material with an aqueous solution to drive sodium ion exchange, and subjecting it to a wash step to remove residual compounds (subjected to a sodium ion exchange process prior to being used in the sodium ion battery) [Xiao, 0071; Xiao ‘204, 0075-0076].
Regarding claim 8, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the mesoporous film has a porosity of 5-50%, of which encompasses the claimed range, 20 to 40 volume percent based on a total volume of the anode zeolite layer or the cathode zeolite layer, respectively, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Xiao further discloses that the mesoporous film has a thickness greater than or equal to about 1 μm to less than or equal to about 50 μm, of which overlaps with the claimed range, 500 nanometers to 10 micrometers, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the modifications set forth above in the rejection of claim 2 (¶23-27) are incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
In accordance with the aforesaid teachings and modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have the separator zeolite layer with a thickness of greater than about 1 μm and less than about 10 μm, of which overlaps with the claimed range, 1 to 10 micrometers, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the modifications set forth above in the rejection of claim 2 (¶23-27) are incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity. Xiao ‘204 teaches that the ceramic coating of the ceramic-coating separator is disposed on one or more surfaces of the porous substrate [0063-0064, 0070], such that a first ceramic-coated surface opposes the cathode and a second ceramic-coated surface opposes the anode [0064].
In accordance with the aforesaid teachings and modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have a first ceramic-coated surface opposing the cathode and a second ceramic-coated surface opposing the anode (the separator zeolite layer is disposed on opposing surfaces of the porous film).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao as applied to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0344004 A1; “Liu”).
Regarding claim 5, Xiao discloses the sodium ion battery set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Xiao remains silent regarding the anode zeolite layer, the cathode zeolite layer, and the separator zeolite layer all have a same composition (see claim objection above for claim interpretation).
Liu is directed towards an electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions [0054]. Liu teaches zeolite particles are distributed amongst active material within the active material layer [0083, 0108, 0122-0126], wherein the active material/active material layer may be for a cathode or an anode [0083, 0113, 0125-0126].
Xiao and Liu each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – a sodium ion battery comprising zeolite particles. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of Xiao so that the cathode active layer and/or anode active layer have zeolite particles distributed therein, like that of Liu, in order to better protect the particle integrity of the electroactive material [Liu, 0108].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have zeolite particles distributed within the cathode active layer and/or anode active layer (the anode active layer or the cathode active layer have zeolite particles dispersed therein).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the rejection of claim 5 above, modified Xiao further teaches that the zeolite particles may be present in the active layer in an amount greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt. % to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of the active layer [Liu, 0083, 0123], of which overlaps with the claimed range, up to 10 wt%, based on a total weight of the anode active layer or a total weight of the cathode active layer, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao as applied to claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), in view of Xiao ‘204 and Li (cited to above), further in view of Hennige et al. (US 2008/0248381 A1; “Hennige”).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the modifications set forth above in the rejection of claim 2 (¶23-27) are incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
Xiao in view of Xiao ‘204 and Li remains silent regarding the separator zeolite layer has a broader porosity range than either the anode zeolite layer or the cathode zeolite layer.
Hennige is directed towards a separator for electrochemical cells comprising a porous carrier [0026-0029]. The porous carrier includes zeolite particles [0026-0027], including all known zeolites, i.e. Zeolite-A, Zeolite-Y [0027], and has a porosity of 40%-97% [0029], wherein the porosity is defined as the volume of the carrier (100%) minus the volume of the fibers of the carrier [0029].
Xiao, Xiao ‘204, Li, and Hennige each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------zeolite layers. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao so that the separator zeolite layer has a porosity of 40%-97%, in order to achieve sufficiently high battery performance [Hennige, 0029].
In accordance with the aforesaid teachings and modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have the separator zeolite layer with a porosity of 40%-97%, and the mesoporous film (for the negative electrode and/or the positive electrode) with a porosity of 5-50%. In view thereof, the separator zeolite layer has a broader porosity range than either the negative electrode mesoporous film or the positive electrode mesoporous film (the separator zeolite layer has a broader porosity range than either the anode zeolite layer or the cathode zeolite layer).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the modifications set forth above in the rejection of claim 9 (¶52-55) are incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
In accordance with the aforesaid teachings and modifications, the electrochemical cell that cycles sodium ions of modified Xiao would have the separator zeolite layer with a porosity of 40%-97%, of which overlaps with the claimed range, 30 to 70 volume percent based on a total volume of the separator zeolite layer, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Yu et al., WO 2022/147784 A1 – is directed towards a molecular sieve-based solid electrolyte [English machine translation copy, 0008], and teaches that the molecular sieve in the molecular sieve membrane or molecular sieve sheet is a silica-alumina molecular sieve [0010-0014], including A, X, Y, ZSM-5 [0014] with, inter alia a sodium ion cation [0015, 0017].
Ozin et al., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 28: 359-376, 1989 – teaches that zeolites may be used for both electrodes and separators [Pages 367-371].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights