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 § 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 and 3-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the claim limitation “a Prussian Blue substrate”. The compound which forms Prussian Blue is Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3. Given the claim limitation of claim 2 which recites “the Prussian blue substrate has a chemical formula of NaxMaM’b(CN)6·zH2O” it is not clear what the Prussian Blue substrate is of claim 1, since the Prussian blue substrate of claim 2 has a formula which is not the same as Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3. A suggested correction is to move the formula of claim 2 into claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or further clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “PB@TA”. It is unclear what the limitation is supposed to represent. Is it supposed to represent a tannic acid coating of the Prussian Blue substrate or a mixture? Appropriate correction and/or further clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of “a particle size”. It is unclear what particles are being referred to. Appropriate correction and/or further clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3-16 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record includes Liu (CN107394140A, Machine Translation) and Qi (CN116207232A, Machine Translation). Liu discloses a sodium-ion battery comprising a Prussian Blue cathode material ([0002]-[0008][0020]) with a first coating layer of polydopamine. The polydopamine coating improves electronic conductivity, superior rate performance and enhanced cycle stability. Qi discloses a sodium ion battery with a cathode material with a multilayer coating wherein the first layer of the multilayer is a tannic acid coating and the second layer is a silane ([0004]-[0009]). Qi discloses the first coating layer is tannic acid, which can inhibit the formation of sodium cathode core and prevent the electrolyte from corroding. On the other hand, the first coating layer, tannic acid, introduces functional groups (-OH), which can provide abundant growth sites for the second coating layer, aminosilane [0008], and form a stable interface. The introduction of nitrogen from the amide into the material of the second coating layer can reduce the binding energy of anions/cations in the electrolyte, promote ion dissociation, increase the concentration of free ions, help increase the sodium ion transfer number, and promote the charge transfer process, thereby reducing impedance. No teaching, suggestion, or motivation can be found in the prior art to have the entirety of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights