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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11-7-2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7-12 and 14-20 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of a sodium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode active material comprising a polyanionic compound comprising Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7 with a coating layer comprising a carbon material; a negative electrode plate comprising a negative electrode current collector and a carbon nanotube primer layer disposed thereon and a solid electrolyte comprising a polymer solid electrolyte comprising poly(vinylidene fluoride-copolyhexafluoropropylene) and a sodium salt comprising sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide in the reply filed on 4-25-2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-12 and 14-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because the claim should cite “A solid polymer electrolyte”. Claims 7-12 and 14-22 are objected to because the claim should cite “The solid polymer electrolyte…”. Claim 16 is objected to because the claim should cite “wherein layered oxide is selected from the group consisting of … and wherein the polyanionic compound is selected from the group consisting of …”. Claim 17 is objected to because the claim should cite “and the carbon material is selected from the group consisting of …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 7-12 and 14-22 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 is rejected because the phrase “wherein a molar percentage of oxygen element existing in forms of… on a molar amount of all elements detected” does not seem to add any value to the claim because no polymers have been claimed in the claim. Claim 1 is rejected because unclear how the solid electrolyte can be used for a sodium secondary battery when no sodium salt has been claimed in the claim”. Claim 8 is rejected because claiming “a polymer” does not add any value to the claim because the claim is drawn to “a solid polymer electrolyte”. Claim 16 is rejected because it is unclear what is “Namanve (CN)6”. Claim 16 is rejected because it is unclear how the compounds “Na1.9CoFe(CN)6, Na2NiFe(CN)6 and Namanve (CN)6” further limit claim 15 from which the claim depends from. Claim 19 is rejected to because it is unclear how an interface resistance of the second battery is in the list of choices for the claim and how it further limits the primer layer. Claim 22 is rejected because the claim cannot depend on claim 11 because claim 11 claims the opposite of what is being claimed in claim 22. This makes the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Harlan et al. (NL 8001088, machine translation). Harlan et al. teaches a solid electrolyte comprising a polymer that does not contain C, O or H where the solid polymer electrolyte comprises sodium chloride which contacts the surface of the solid polymer electrolyte. Since Harlan et al. teaches a solid polymer electrolyte having a surface, then inherently the molar percentage of oxygen element existing in forms of a hydrogen-oxygen bond, a carbon-oxygen double bond and a carbon-oxygen single bond on the surface not greater than 10% based on a molar amount of all elements detected must also be obtained when the polymer solid electrolyte is tested using XPS analysis.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the molar percentage of oxygen element existing in forms of a hydrogen-oxygen bond, a carbon-oxygen double bond and a carbon-oxygen single bond on the surface not greater than 10% based on a molar amount of all elements detected when the polymer solid electrolyte is tested using XPS analysis would have obviously been present once the Harlan et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, 14-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takehito et al. (JP 4149547, machine translation). Takehito et al. teaches a battery comprising a polymeric solid electrolyte and an electrode where the polymeric solid electrolyte preferably consists of a compound containing oxygen, such as a polymer comprising polyethylene oxide derivative and a solvent including an electrolytic salt. Takehito et al. teaches a polyethylene oxide and sodium perchlorate (NaClO)4 dissolved in acetonitrile producing a solid polymer electrolyte having a thickness of 0.5 mm. Takehito et al. teaches that the battery comprises a positive electrode comprising LiCoO [teaching claim 15]. Since Takehito et al. teaches a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a polymer comprising polyethylene oxide and has a surface then inherently the molar percentage of oxygen element existing in forms of a hydrogen-oxygen bond, a carbon-oxygen double bond and a carbon-oxygen single bond on the surface not greater than 10% based on a molar amount of all elements detected must also be obtained when the polymer solid electrolyte is tested using XPS analysis.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the molar percentage of oxygen element existing in forms of a hydrogen-oxygen bond, a carbon-oxygen double bond and a carbon-oxygen single bond on the surface not greater than 10% based on a molar amount of all elements detected when the polymer solid electrolyte is tested using XPS analysis would have obviously been present once the Takehito et al. product is provided. See MPEP 2122.01, I.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehito et al. (JP 4149547, machine translation). Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2016/0056509) teaches a surface treatment method for a solid electrolyte for a sodium secondary battery comprising a 1st step of preparing a polymer solution; a 2nd step of coating a polymer solution onto a region of the surface of the sodium ion conductive solid electrolyte to form a polymer film; and a 3rd step of forming a porous carbon coating by carbonizing the polymer film. The carbon coating of the solid electrolyte may contact the molten sodium of the sodium secondary battery to ensure the wettability of the solid electrolyte relative to the molten sodium. It is known that the contact angle of molten sodium with respect to a solid electrolyte made from ceramic material has a significantly bad wettability of 128 degrees at 265°C. The solid electrolyte produced by the surface treatment method described above has significant wettability even at low temperature operating environment of 250°C. The sodium secondary battery includes an anode containing sodium; molten sodium in contact with the carbon coating of the solid electrolyte and a cathode containing a transition metal and/or the transition metal halide. Kim et al. teaches in claims 15-17, that the sodium battery includes an anode; a molten sodium contacting the carbon coating layer of the solid electrolyte and a cathode containing a transition metal. Kim et al. teaches in [0075], that the molten sodium may be an aqueous solution containing a sodium salt and a molten state and the sodium salt may include, hydroxides, borates, phosphates, halides of sodium or mixtures thereof.
Liang et al. (CN113690483) teaches a method for modifying a sodium super ionic conductor type solid electrolyte by performing plasma modification treatment on sodium super ionic conductor type solid electrolyte particles to obtain activated sodium super ionic conductor type solid electrolyte particles; weighing a polymer and the activated sodium super ionic conductor type solid electric particles; dissolving the polymer in the activated sodium super ionic conductor type solid electrolyte particles in an organic solvent to obtain a mixed solution, and then pouring the mixed solution into a preset mold and trying to remove the organic solvent forming a composite solid electrolyte membrane. Liang et al. teaches that the polymer comprises polyethylene oxide, PVDF-HFP, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), etc. Liang et al. teaches that the prepared composite solid electrolyte is applied to a solid sodium ion battery, which can reduce the interface impedance, prolong the cycle life of the battery and improves the electric chemical performance of the battery pack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights