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 Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 10/20/2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 2, 21, 35-42, and 57 have been cancelled.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous claim objections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 04/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
2. Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haschka et al. (Patent No. 4,250,236) in view of Su et al. (Advanced Energy Materials, 2016) and further in view of Pham et al. (Pub. No. US 20200365953 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haschka teaches an electrode (see [Col. 6, lines 5-9]), comprising: an iron electrode body (see [Col. 4, lines 65-67]) comprising iron active material (see [Col. 5, lines 4-16], iron material and additive pressed into iron electrode, iron now comprises the body and active material) and a zinc sulfide additive (see [Col. 5, lines 1-5]), wherein the zinc sulfide additive (see [Col. 5, lines 1-5]) comprises zinc sulfide (see [Col. 5, lines 1-5] where zinc sulfide is added as zinc sulfide) in an amount of 0.01% to 20% by weight (3.4%, see [Col. 5, lines 3-4], the zinc sulfide is added in 2% by weight based on total weight of electrode, this equates to 3.4% based on weight of iron active material, (total weight = weight of iron, weight of sodium chloride, and weight of zinc sulfide, weight percent of zinc sulfide/weight percent of iron = 2/58 = .0344 *100 = 3.4%) of the iron active material (see [Col. 5, lines 4-16], iron material and additive pressed into iron electrode, iron now comprises the body and active material), and sulfide ions (sulfide ions, see [Col. 2, lines 28-30]) releasable from the zinc sulfide (see [Col. 5, lines 1-5] where zinc sulfide is added as zinc sulfide, see [Col. 2, lines 28-30] where the sulfur compounds used place sulfide ions in the electrolyte) into an electrolyte (electrolyte, see [Col. 2, lines 28-30]) during charging (during the charging process, see [Col. 2, lines 28-32]) but fails to teach wherein the zinc sulfide additive comprises crystalline cubic zinc sulfide, and a sulfide ion concentration of 0.01 mmol/L to 10 mmol/L during charging.
However, Su teaches a highly pure crystalline cubic zinc sulfide (see [Page. 3, paragraph 2]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haschka to substitute zinc sulfide as taught by Haschka for a highly pure cubic form of zinc sulfide with a high degree of crystallinity (see [Page 3, Paragraph 3] of Su) as taught by Su as an art effective equivalent for the benefit of stable long cycling life, high-rate capability, and high Coulombic efficiency (see [Page 11, Paragraph 2] of Su]). Further Haschka teaches that modifications can be made (see [Col. 6, lines 17-21] of Haschka).
Haschka in view of Su fails to teach a sulfide ion concentration of 0.01 mmol/L to 10 mmol/L during charging.
However, Pham teaches a sulfide ion concentration (sulfide concentration, see [0202]) of 0.01 mmol/L to 10 mmol/L (0.1 micromol/L or more, and 0.7 mmol/L or less, see [0202]) during charging (see [0049] where the concentration is kept during at least 99% of charge-discharge cycles, therefore during charging).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haschka in view of Su such that the sulfide ion concentration is between 0.1 micromol/L to 0.7 mmol/L as taught by Pham to operate efficiently and prevent corrosion or other detrimental effects (see [0198] of Pham). It would have further been obvious to modify the sulfide ion concentration to stay within the claimed range as Pham teaches sulfide ion concentration is a result effective variable of range of coulombic efficiency, range of voltaic efficiency, operating temperature, and separator material (see [0201] of Pham). Further Haschka in view of Su teaches that modifications can be made (see [Col. 6, lines 17-21] of Haschka).
Regarding claim 2, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide has a high degree of crystallinity as measured by at least one metric (see [Page 3, Paragraph 3] of Su).
Regarding claim 3, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein at least 50 mass % (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su, no peaks at hexagonal wurtzite type ZnS) of the zinc sulfide additive is in the form of cubic zinc sulfide (see zinc sulfide substituted for crystalline cubic zinc sulfide).
Regarding claim 4, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein at least 75 mass % (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su, no peaks at hexagonal wurtzite type ZnS) of the zinc sulfide additive is in the form of cubic zinc sulfide (see zinc sulfide substituted for crystalline cubic zinc sulfide).
Regarding claim 5, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein at least 90 mass % (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su, two strong peaks at 258 and 349 cm-1 indicates cubic structure, while a lack of peak at 72 and 286 cm-1 shows the absence of wurtzite hexagonal form, showing a highly pure cubic crystalline material) of the zinc sulfide additive is in the form of cubic zinc sulfide (see zinc sulfide substituted for crystalline cubic zinc sulfide).
Regarding claim 6, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham fails to teach wherein 95 mass % of the zinc sulfide additive is in the form of cubic zinc sulfide, however Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham appreciates the unavoidable presence of other phases (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] and Figure 1f of Su showing minor peaks in the Figure) which obviates the claimed range as a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand ~5% of impurities is acceptable in the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero x-ray diffraction (XRD) peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (111) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 28.6 degrees with a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) value of less than 0.6±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen below. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1c of Su
PNG
media_image2.png
566
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A of Application
Regarding claim 8, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero x-ray diffraction (XRD) peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (111) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 28.6 degrees with a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) value of less than 0.45±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 9, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero x-ray diffraction (XRD) peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (111) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 28.6 degrees with a full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) value of less than 0.3±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 10, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (220) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 47.6 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.5±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 11, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (220) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 47.6 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.35±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 12, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (220) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 47.6 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.2±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 13, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (311) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 56.4 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.6±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 14, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (311) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 56.4 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.45±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 15, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (311) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 56.4 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.35±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 16, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (200) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 33.1 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.6±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 17, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (200) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 33.1 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.45±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 18, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (200) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 33.1 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.3±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 19, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide is characterized by a non-zero XRD peak for cubic ZnS (see [Page 3, Paragraph 2] of Su]), but fails to specifically teach it is characterized with Miller indices (200) as determined by Rietveld refinement at 33.1 degrees with an FWHM value of less than 0.2±0.1 degree.
However, the claimed and prior art compounds are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition as further seen in comparison between Rietveld refinement pattern graph Figure 1c of the prior art and Figure 2A “crystalline” section of the instant application as seen above. Therefore, the properties of the characterization are necessarily present in the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as “the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel” (MPEP 2112.I).
Regarding claim 20, Haschka in view of Su and further in view of Pham teaches wherein the crystalline cubic zinc sulfide (see zinc sulfide substituted for crystalline cubic zinc sulfide) is present in the electrode as particles of between 0.1 micron and 500 micron in size (see [Col. 4, lines 66-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-2]).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied.
Conclusion
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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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 at 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 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723