DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 11/21/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 20 have been amended. Claims 24, 31, 32, and 36 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-6, 18-22, and 34-35 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a fugitive pore former” which is not defined by the instant specification, and is thus interpreted using the customary meaning in the art, wherein fugitive pore former is any material that occupies space and is then later removed, or, in in other words, any removable material. The examiner notes that most materials can be chemically etched away, such that, under this interpretation, most materials are removable and thus fugitive pore formers.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1, 3-6, 18-22, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogg (US-20140220432-A1) in view of Haschka (US-4250236-A).
Regarding claim 1,
Ogg teaches a battery, comprising:
a positive electrode ([0016], “nickel cathode”);
an electrolyte ([0016], “ternary electrolyte”);
and a negative electrode ([0019], “iron anode”) wherein the negative electrode comprises a metal precursor material ([0016], “iron”; see [0019]) and a fugitive pore former ([0024-0025], “sulfur or sulfide additives”, wherein inevitability a portion of the sulfur additives dissolve in the electrolyte, as described in [0010], such that the sulfur additives are at least removable by dissolution, and thus are fugitive pore formers, see claim interpretation above),
the fugitive pore former ([0024-0025], “sulfur or sulfide additives”, see above) is dispersed in the metal precursor material (wherein [0024-0025] describes the additives as added to coating mix of [0030], such that they are dispersed in the active material coating),
the fugitive pore former is removable (see above, wherein the sulfur additives are at least removable via dissolution into the electrolyte as described in [0010], wherein dissolution into the electrolyte results in the original particle no longer remaining at its initial location) from the negative electrode (iron electrode) in the battery via the electrolyte (see above and [0010])
under electrochemical cycling conditions in which the metal precursor material in the negative electrode is electrochemically reducible to a porous metal having a majority of porosity in the negative electrode within an average pore radius from a reacting surface of the porous metal (wherein the limitation thereof is considered a functional limitation, and wherein the prior art teaches all the positively recited structure of the claim)
Ogg fails to teach wherein the metal precursor material and the fugitive pore former have about the same average particle size, the fugitive pore former is electrochemically reducible at a temperature less than 400°C.
Haschka teaches:
wherein the metal precursor material (col. 4, lines 65- col. 5, line carbonyl iron having a particle diameter of 2-10 um)
and the fugitive pore former (col. 1, lines 40-45, iron sulfide added to the active electrode mass; col. 1, line 61-col. 2, line 3, sulfide ions diffuse from the electrode are oxidized to sulfate; col. 2, lines 28-35, removed by chemical dissolution and electrochemical decomposition during charging, see claim interpretation above)
have about the same average particle size (col. 4, line 65- col. 5, line 3, carbonyl iron having a particle diameter of 2-10 um and a sulfide additive having a grain size of 5-10 um, providing substantially overlapping particle-size ranges)
and wherein the fugitive pore former (sulfur additives, see above) is electrochemically reducible (see col 2, lines 46-50, wherein electrochemical decomposition of a metal sulfide deposits metal on the negative electrode; col. 2, line 66- col. 3, line 5, metallic sulfide electrochemically decomposes into pure metal and sulfide, sulfur compounds release sulfide by chemical dissolution and electrochemical decomposition during charging, and thus reducible) at a temperature less than 400°C (col 2, lines 28-44, electrochemical decomposition occurs during charging and battery operation is discussed at 20 C and at temperatures up to 70 C).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute Haschka’s particulate iron sulfide additive for Ogg’s sulfur/sulfide additive because Haschka identifies iron sulfide as a known additive for an iron active mass (Haschka, col. 1, lines 40-45) performing the same anti-passivation and electrode-activation function sought by Ogg (Ogg, [0010]), [0019]. Additionally, Haschka further teaches using a solid, sparingly soluble additive (Haschka, col. 2, lines 63-68) to control sulfide availability in the electrolyte according to the additive’s solubility (Haschka, col. 2, lines 63-68; col. 3, lines 16-30), thereby avoiding excessive local sulfide concentrations associated with pore blockage while maintain activation of the iron electrode (Haschka, col. 2, lines 1-6 and 21-45). The substitution would therefore have constituted the use of a known functionally equivalent sulfide additive for its recognized purpose, with the predictable result of activating the iron electrode while providing controlled sulfide availability. It further would have been obvious to select the iron precursor and iron-sulfide particle sizes from Haschka’s substantially overlapping ranges because Haschka teaches uniformly distributing the additive and expressly prefers sulfide particles of 5-10 um (Haschka, col. 4, lines 1-10), which falls within the disclosed 2-10 um iron-particle range (Haschka, col. 4, line 65- col. 5, line 3).
Regarding claim 3,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), wherein the porous metal to which the metal precursor material is electrochemically reducible (see rejection of claim 1 above) comprises iron ([0016], “iron electrode”).
Regarding claim 4,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 3 (see elements of claim 3 above), wherein the fugitive pore former (see rejection of claim 1 above) is a reducing agent (see rejection of claim 1 above, see col 2, lines 46-50, wherein electrochemical decomposition of a metal sulfide deposits metal on the negative electrode; col. 2, line 66- col. 3, line 5, metallic sulfide electrochemically decomposes into pure metal and sulfide, sulfur compounds release sulfide by chemical dissolution and electrochemical decomposition during charging, and thus reducible and a reducing agent).
Regarding claim 5,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 4 (see elements of claim 4 above), but fails to teach wherein the reducing agent comprises carbon. However, in another embodiment (example 3, [0043]), Ogg teaches the reducing agent comprises carbon ([0043], CMC, which has carbon). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Regarding claim 6,
Ogg in view of Hiroyuki and Evreinova teaches the battery of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), wherein the fugitive pore former comprises lead sulfide (Haschka, col. 1, lines 49-55, lead sulfide identified as additive for counteracting passivation of an iron electrode). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to select Haschka’s lead sulfide as Ogg’s sulfur/sulfide additive because Haschka identifies lead sulfide as a known additive for counteracting passivation of an iron electrode (Haschka, col. 1, lines 49-55). The substitution would therefore have constituted the use of a known functionally equivalent sulfide additive for its recognized purpose, with the predictable result of inhibiting passivation.
Regarding claim 18,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the fugitive pore former comprises at least two different fugitive pore formers. However, Haschka teaches wherein the fugitive pore former (sulfide additive, see rejection of claim 1 above) comprises at least two different fugitive pore formers (col. 6, lines 55-62; claim 8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to employ at least two of Haschka’s disclosed metal-sulfide additives in Ogg’s iron active mass because Haschka identifies the sulfides as alternative, compatible additives performing the same electrode-activation function, and Ogg permits the use of various inorganic sulfide compounds [0029]. Combining two known, compatible sulfide additives would have predictably provided the recognized activation function.
Regarding claim 19,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the two different fugitive pore formers (Haschka, col. 4, lines 28-31, zinc sulfide and manganese sulfide disclosed as activating additives) are different type pore formers (Haschka, col. 4, lines 28-31, wherein zinc sulfide and manganese sulfide are different types).
Regarding claim 20,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), further comprising a current collector ([0027], “substrate”) in electrical communication [0027] with the negative electrode [0027], wherein the current collector ([0027], “substrate”) is along at least a portion of the negative electrode ([0032], “coating” such that the substrate is along the coating layer/active material layer).
Regarding claim 21,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), wherein the positive electrode comprises an air-breathing cathode ([0015], “Fe-air”).
Regarding claim 22,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 3 (see elements of claim 3 above), wherein the iron comprises iron powder ([0041], “iron powder”).
Regarding claim 34,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the electrolyte is alkaline ([0003], “alkaline electrolyte”).
Regarding claim 35,
Ogg in view of Haschka teaches the battery of claim 34 (see rejection of claim 34 above), wherein the electrolyte has pH above 12 ([0018], “5-7 M” thus ~ 14.7-14.85 pH via pOH equation)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 1 has not been properly interpreted as a product-by-process claim. However, this is not persuasive, as a major portion of rejection of claim 1 above uses a functional limitation interpretation since the claim does not specifically recite electrochemical reduced at a certain temperature.
Applicants arguments regarding Hiroyuki and Narayan are moot in light of the updated rejection which no longer relies on any previously applied art.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off allowable independent claims. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US3802878A, relevant to an alternative teaching of a fugitive pore former, Evreinova et. Al, hereinafter referred to as Evreinova (“Electrodeposition of Iron from Sulfate Solutions in the Presence of Aminoacetic Acid”), relevant to iron (II) sulphate temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights