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 claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 8/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/12/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3 are 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.
1. Internal Structural Contradiction and Temporal Indefiniteness (Claim 1)
Claim 1 recites an apparatus directed to "A rechargeable anode-free sodium metal battery comprising... an anode substrate, wherein the anode substrate has no deposited material prior to battery recharge, and wherein the anode substrate comprises an ingot-type, non-porous sodium metal surface formed during battery recharge."
The claim contains an internal contradiction and is subject to two mutually exclusive structural interpretations:
Under a first interpretation ("Preamble Controlling" / Uncharged State): The preamble limits the apparatus to an "anode-free" battery, and the body explicitly dictates that the anode substrate "has no deposited material prior to battery recharge." Under this construction, the claimed battery exists in an uncharged, bare-substrate state, and the subsequent clause reciting that the substrate "comprises an ingot-type, non-porous sodium metal surface formed during battery recharge" is treated merely as a statement of intended use, capability, or an unperformed process step given no patentable structural weight at the time of manufacture or sale [MPEP 2111.02 and MPEP 2114]. Under this reading, the physical battery has no active sodium anode.
Under a second interpretation ("Body Controlling" / Recharged State): The body of the claim positively and structurally requires that "the anode substrate comprises an ingot-type, non-porous sodium metal surface formed during battery recharge." Because apparatus claims are judged by their physical structure rather than the process of making them [MPEP 2113], this positive recitation requires the physical presence of the solid sodium metal layer on the substrate. Under this construction, the claimed article is in fact an anode-comprising sodium metal battery, directly contradicting the preamble designation of being "anode-free" as well as the limitation requiring "no deposited material prior to battery recharge."
Because Claim 1 attempts to define an apparatus at two mutually exclusive temporal/physical states – one lacking a deposited anode material and one comprising a deposited sodium metal surface – a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the true metes and bounds of the claim or ascertain when infringement occurs (e.g., whether the claim covers the cell dry/uncharged on the shelf or fully charged by an end-user). Furthermore, during normal cycling of a rechargeable alkali metal battery, sodium is electrochemically stripped from the substrate upon discharge and redeposited upon recharge. The claim language leaves it entirely unclear whether the battery ceases to be the claimed apparatus when fully discharged (stripping the sodium back to bare current collector) and re-infringes only upon being recharged. Defining an apparatus claim around transient, cycling-dependent states rather than stable physical structure render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [MPEP 2173.05(b) and 2173.05(e)].
2. Temporal and Terminological Ambiguity of "Recharge" vs. "Initial Charge" (Claims 1 and 9)
Both independent claims recite forming the sodium metal surface "during battery recharge" from an anode substrate having "no deposited material prior to battery recharge." In the art of anode-free secondary batteries, the cell is assembled with no active alkali metal on the anode current collector, and the alkali metal anode is formed in situ during an initial charging process (or formation step). Subsequent charge cycles following a discharge are recharges. If "battery recharge" is accorded its plain and ordinary meaning (a subsequent charge following a prior discharge), then prior to battery recharge, the battery has already undergone an initial charge and discharge cycle. Consequently, the substrate has already experienced plating, SEI formation, and stripping, and is no longer in a pristine state having "no deposited material prior to battery recharge." If Applicant intends "battery recharge" to encompass the initial charge of an uncycled cell, the term is used in an idiosyncratic manner contrary to its plain meaning without definition in the specification [MPEP 2173.05(a)]. A PHOSITA cannot ascertain whether the claims are directed exclusively to cycling steps, the initial formation step, or both.
3. Subjective and Relative Terms of Degree Lacking Objective Standards (Claims 1 and 9)
"Ingot-type" (Claim 1): The term "ingot-type" is not a recognized, standardized term of art in battery electrochemistry or metallurgy for electroplated deposits. The suffix "-type" creates ambiguity regarding the physical boundaries of what qualifies as an "ingot" versus a dense foil, continuous sheet, or pressed plate. While paragraph [0105] of the specification states that an ingot is a "non-porous solid piece of Na metal with shiny-smooth surfaces," the claim language "ingot-type" leaves a PHOSITA guessing what degree of morphological resemblance to an "ingot" is required to fall within the scope of the claim [MPEP 2173.05(b)].
"Shiny-smooth" (Claim 9): Claim 9 recites forming a "continuous, crevice-free, shiny-smooth, non-dendritic, and non-porous sodium metal surface." The term "shiny-smooth" is a subjective, aesthetic visual characterization. The claim and specification fail to provide an objective test, numerical threshold, or measurement standard (such as an arithmetic average surface roughness Ra, optical reflectivity percentage, or specular reflectance metric) to differentiate a "shiny-smooth" surface from a "dull" or "semi-gloss" surface (such as the dull interwoven mat disclosed in the prior art of Zhang [par. [0082-83]. A claim reciting subjective terms without an objective standard is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
4. Preamble vs. Body Contradiction in Method of Fabrication (Claim 9)
Claim 9 recites: "A method for fabricating a rechargeable anode-free sodium metal battery, the method comprising: depositing sodium metal onto an anode substrate... and forming on the anode substrate a continuous, crevice-free, shiny-smooth, non-dendritic, and non-porous sodium metal surface."
The stated objective in the preamble is fabricating an "anode-free" sodium metal battery. However, the affirmative manipulative steps of the method require depositing sodium metal directly onto the anode substrate to form a solid, continuous sodium metal surface thereon. Once these manipulative steps are performed, the resulting article is an anode-comprising battery, directly negating the preamble recitation of fabricating an anode-free battery. This conflict between the intended product of manufacture in the preamble and the affirmative physical steps in the body leaves the scope of the method indefinite.
5. Dependent Claims 2–8 and 10–13
Dependent claims 2–8 and 10–13 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency from indefinite base claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claimed rechargeable anode-free sodium metal battery, and method for fabricating the same, are novel over the closest prior art – Zhang (US20160072151A1) in view of Zheng (“High performance Na3V2(PO4)3 cathode prepared by a facile solution evaporation method for sodium-ion batteries”- attached herein).
The combined prior art discloses an anode-free rechargeable sodium metal battery comprising a bare copper anode current collector, a cathode nanomaterial (such as Na3V2(PO4)3), and a nonaqueous electrolyte (e.g., sodium salts dissolved in glyme solvents). However, Zhang defines "nonaqueous" broadly as containing no more than trace amounts, where “trace amounts” is specifically defined as <100 ppm of water, and further demonstrates that electroplating sodium metal under such conditions yields a dull, flat, interwoven mat of sodium filaments after repeat cycling of battery [Zhang – pars. 0049,0054,0082-83; Figs. 5A–5D]. Zhang provide a motivation to modify the electrolyte of Zhang to maintain a critical total water content of about 10 ppm or less, in combination with forming a dense, non-porous sodium metal ingot deposit directly on an unmodified, bare anode substrate upon multiple cycles of battery charge/discharge/recharge. While modifying parameters within an overlapping range can sometimes constitute routine optimization under MPEP 2144.05, water content was not recognized in the Zhang as a result-effective variable for controlling electroplated sodium morphology on an unmodified substrate. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification provides objective evidence demonstrating unexpected criticality at the claimed boundary: at water contents exceeding 10 ppm (e.g., 20-30 ppm >50 ppm), dynamic interfacial stability fails, producing picoliter gas bubbles and mossy/filamentous growths rather than a dense, continuous ingot deposit [Specification – pars. [0106-122].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights