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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 11-13 and 17-19 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 an anode-free, sodium metal secondary battery comprising a negative electrode plate; a positive electrode comprising a polyanionic compound comprising Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7 and an electrolyte solution comprising a sodium salt comprising NaPF6, an ether solvent comprising ethylene glycol dimethyl ether and a forming additive comprising a sulfonate ester compound comprising 1, 3-propane sultone in the reply filed on 8-18-2025 and 10-16-2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 and 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8-18-2025 and 10-16-2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 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 3 is rejected because the phrase “is not greater than 50
PNG
media_image1.png
16
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
does not cite a lower
PNG
media_image1.png
16
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
value.
Claim 16 is rejected because the claim is redundant.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (WO 2022/238985) in view of Li et al. (CN 114243005, translation) or Zeng (CN 113437356, machine translation). Wright et al. teaches in claim 14, an anode-free sodium cell comprising: a cathode comprising one or more sodium-containing active materials; an anode current collector and a non-aqueous electrolyte composition according to any one of claims 1-13. Wright et al. teaches in claim 16, where the sodium-containing active materials can be polyanionic compounds, etc. Wright et al. teaches in claim 1, where the electrolyte composition comprising a sodium containing salts, a solvent comprising a glyme-based solvent and an additive comprising a sulfur-containing compound in an amount of no greater than about 10% by weight of the solvent and teaches in claims 4-5, where the sulfur-containing compound can comprise 1,3-propane sultone. Wright et al. teaches in Table 2, where the additives are present in an amount of less than 2 wt%. Wright et al. teaches that the sodium-containing salts can be NaPF6, NaBF4, etc. in an amount of 1.5 M as shown in Table 2. Wright et al. discloses the claimed invention teaching the exact same anode-free metal secondary sodium battery comprising the exact same electrolyte solution comprising less than 2 wt% of the sulfonate ester compound represented by Formula III, specifically 1,3-propane sultone and the same cathode comprising a sodium polyanionic compound but does not specifically teaching that the compound comprising a polyanionic compound is Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7. Li et al. teaches claims 1 and 15, a secondary battery which is one of a sodium ion battery comprising a cathode comprising at least one iron-based polyanionic compound and an electrolyte solution comprising an ether solvent, a sodium salt at a concentration of 0.01-10M. Li et al. teaches in Example 10, a battery comprising a cathode comprising Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7 coated on a current collector. Li et al. teaches that the solvent comprises diethylene glycol dimethyl ether, ethylene glycol dimethyl ether, etc. and the sodium salt comprises sodium perchlorate, etc. Li et al. teaches that the iron-based polyanionic compound is Na4Fe3(PO4)2PO7, Na2FePO4F, Na2FeP2O7, NaFePO4, etc. Li et al. teaches that the electrolyte solution further comprises one or more of sultones, etc. as a film-forming additive to facilitate the formation of a uniform SEI film. Zeng teaches a battery comprising a polyanionic compound comprising sodium vanadium phosphate [Na3V2(PO4)3], Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7, NaFePO4, etc. Zeng teaches that the battery comprises an electrolyte solution comprising a sodium salt and an organic solvent, with the organic solvent can be selected from the group consisting of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl ether, diglyme, triethylene glycol dimethyl ether, tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether, methyl tertiary butyl ether, where an ether solvent is preferably included for adjusting sodium ion deposition shape so as to inhibit a large amount of growth of sodium dendritic crystal. Zeng teaches that the sodium salt can comprise sodium hexafluorophosphate, sodium tetrafluoroborate, sodium perchlorate, etc. Zeng teaches in Embodiment 1, a battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive active material comprising Na4Fe3(PO4)2PO7 coated on a current collector; a current collector and an electrolyte solution comprising 1 M NaPF6 in diglyme and tetraglycol dimethyl. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7 in place of the sodium polyanionic compound taught by Wright et al. as the sodium polyanionic compound because Li et al. and Zeng teaches that the cathode comprises a sodium polyanionic compound can be Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7 as explained above and one would expect therefore that Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7 would function in a similar way and give similar results. When Wright et al. teaches the same positive electrode plate and the same mass percentage of the film-forming additive, then inherently the film resistance x
PNG
media_image1.png
16
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of the positive electrode plate and a mass percentage of y% of the film-forming additive with respect to a total mass of the electrolyte solution satisfying: x x y <25 must also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the film resistance x
PNG
media_image1.png
16
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of the positive electrode plate and a mass percentage of y% of the film-forming additive with respect to a total mass of the electrolyte solution satisfying x x y <25 would have obviously been present once the Wright et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977). In regard to dependent claim 3, when Wright et al. teaches the same positive electrode plate and the same mass percentage of the film-forming additive, then inherently the film resistance of the positive electrode plate not greater than 50
PNG
media_image1.png
16
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
must also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the film resistance of the positive electrode plate not greater than 50
PNG
media_image1.png
16
15
media_image1.png
Greyscale
would have obviously been present once the Wright et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977). In regard to claims 17-19, a battery module, a battery pack and an electrical device, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art teaching a secondary battery in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 17-19, directed to a battery module, a battery pack and an electrical device must be distinguished from the prior art teaching a secondary battery in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (CN 108134047, machine translation) teaches in claims 1-2, a high- load substance positive active electrode material in a sodium ion battery comprises a polyanionic compound, etc. Zhang et al. teaches in claim 7, wherein the polyanionic compound comprises Na4Fe3(PO4)2P2O7, Na3V2(PO4)3 [NVP], NaFePO4, Na2FeP2O, etc. Zhang et al. teaches a sodium battery comprising an negative electrode plate; a positive plate comprising an anode material comprising sodium vanadium phosphate [NVP] and an electrolyte solution comprising 1M NaClO4; 1:1 EC:DEC and 2 wt% of FEC.
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 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