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 .
Status of claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 33-39 are new; claim(s) 21-22 and 24-25 remain withdrawn. New claims 38-39 are drawn to an invention (a method) independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed (a product, being a battery) and are withdrawn. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 03/05/2026 has/have been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented below.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 38-39 are directed to the method of claim 21, which is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed in claim 1, being a product (a battery).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 38-39 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,8-10,12,16,18-19, 31-34, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US-20170110765-A1) in view of Tomantschger et al. (US-5300371-A) and Abdalla et al. (Fabrication of nanoscale to macroscale nickel-multiwall carbon nanotube hybrid materials with tunable material properties, copy provided with this Office action)
Regarding claims 1, 33, and 34, Yadav discloses a battery comprising: a housing 6; an electrolyte disposed in the housing; and an anode comprising an anode material 5 ([0019], FIG. 1) such as zinc and zinc oxide ([0045]) disposed in the housing; and a cathode 12 disposed in the housing 6 and comprising a cathode material 2 comprising manganese dioxide and a bismuth oxide ([0019-0020], [0022], FIG. 1).
Yadav discloses the inclusion of a conductive carbon ([0024]), an experimental embodiment of the battery produced using carbon nanotubes as the conductive carbon ([0045]), reading on portions of claim 1, and further envisions replacing some part of the conductive carbon with a conductive metal additive such as Ni, Cu, Al, Co, or Ag and salts thereof ([0025]), an experimental embodiment using Ni metal ([0054]). However, Yadav fails to further provide a conductive carbon coated with a material comprising an oxide/hydroxide phase of Ni, Cu, Sn, Al, Co, or Ag wherein the material forms a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface of the conductive carbon as claimed.
Tomantschger, analogous as a battery with a MnO2 cathode (Tomantschger col. 14 ln. 1-10), teaches that carbon fibers plated with metals such as silver and nickel are substitutable equivalents to carbon fibers for the same purpose as conductive additives (Tomantschger col. 14 ln 65—col. 15 ln. 12).
It is further known in the art as taught by Abdalla, directed to a multiwall carbon nanotube plating process (Abdalla, abstract) related to Applicant’s coated conductive carbon material, that CNTs plated with a material (e.g., Ni) which forms a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface of the CNT also have improved electrical conductivity and have utility in electrochemical and energy storage technologies (p. 1 ¶1-2, p. 3 ¶1).
Thus, in seeking to improve the electrical conductivity of Yadav’s conductive carbon comprising carbon nanotubes, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to coat Yadav’s conductive carbon with a material comprising nickel, wherein the material forms a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface on the conductive carbon comprising carbon nanotubes as taught by Abdalla. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Tomantschger teaches plated conductive carbons as substitutable equivalents to conductive carbons as conductive additives in Yadav’s MnO2-type battery, and because Yadav recognizes Ni metal as a suitable conductive additive (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Yadav modified in view of Tomantschger and Abdalla fails to expressly disclose that the metallic layer formed as a plated coating on an exterior surface on the conductive carbon is formed by coating the conductive carbon with a material comprising an oxide or hydroxide-phase of nickel, copper, tin, aluminum, cobalt, or silver as claimed in claim 1, of nickel, copper, or a combination thereof as claimed in claim 33, or nickel as claimed in claim 34. However, in the method for coating the conductive carbon, nickel is deposited on CNTs mixed with a Ni-containing plating solution (about 4.4*10-2 mol/L Ni ions from 1.7g NiCl2, 1.1 g NiSO4·6H2O in 100mL water) where sodium hydroxide is then introduced into the solution during electroplating to maintain a pH≈9 (i.e., 10-5M OH-) (Abdalla p. 3 ¶4). Hydroxides of nickel have a very low molar solubility (Ksp = 5.48×10−16), where in Abdalla’s plating solution mixture:
[Ni2+][OH-]^2= 4.4*10-2 * (10-5M)2 = 4.4*10-12 ≥ Ksp of 5.48×10−16
such that at least some portion of hydroxide-phase nickel would necessarily precipitate as a residual component in the material forming a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface of the conductive carbon, thus reading on the limitations of claims 1, 33, and 34 where the material comprises a hydroxide phase of nickel.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yadav further discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the cathode material further comprises copper or a copper-based compound (Yadav [0020-0021])
Regarding claim 3, modified Yadav further discloses the battery of claim 3, wherein an anode comprises 13.6 g zinc powder, 1.6 g zinc oxide, and 0.8 g TEFLON® (Yadav [0045]), equivalent to an anode comprising 95 wt% zinc which is within the claimed range of ≥50 wt%.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the manganese dioxide comprises alpha- manganese dioxide, beta-manganese dioxide, gamma-manganese dioxide, lambda- manganese dioxide, epsilon-manganese dioxide, delta-manganese dioxide (or birnessite), electrolytic manganese dioxide (EMD), or a combination thereof (Yadav [0020])
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein (claim 8) the cathode further comprises copper or a copper-based compound (Yadav [0020-0021]), and wherein (claim 9) the copper-based compound is copper aluminum oxide, copper (I) oxide, copper (II) oxide, and/or copper salts in a +1, +2, +3, or +4 oxidation state (Yadav [0023])
Regarding claims 10 and 12 , modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein (claim 10) the electrode cathode material further comprises a binder, and wherein the binder comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene (“TEFLON®”), a cellulose-based hydrogel, or a combination thereof (Yadav [0026]), and wherein (claim 12) the electrode cathode material further comprises a binder ([0021]), and wherein the binder is a cellulose-based hydrogel crosslinked with a copolymer selected from the group consisting of a polyvinyl alcohol, a polyvinylacetate, a polyaniline, a polyvinylpyrrolidone, a polyvinylidene fluoride, a polypyrrole, and combinations thereof ([0026])
Regarding claims 16 and 37, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1. An experimental example of a battery comprises 35 wt% MnO2, 7 wt% Bi2O3, 30% copper, 28% CNT as a conductive carbon, and 0% binder (Yadav [0045]). While modified Yadav fails to explicitly indicate a mass percentage of coated conductive carbon, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select the same percentage of coated CNT as the percentage of CNT in this example, as coated conductive carbons are art-recognized equivalents to uncoated conductive carbons as conductive materials (Tomantschger col. 14 ln 65—col. 15 ln. 12) (MPEP 2144.06 II), thus arriving at a battery wherein the cathode comprises 35 wt% MnO2, 7 wt% Bi2O3, 30% copper, 28% of the coated conductive carbon, and 0 wt% binder, this proportion being within the ranges claimed in claim 16.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the coated conductive carbon (e.g., 28% as above) would necessarily mitigate the potential loss due to the zincate effect by at least some degree as claimed in claim 37.
Regarding claim 18, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1 wherein the battery further comprises a current collector 1, 4 for the cathode and the anode (Yadav FIG. 1, [0019]), wherein the current collector is selected from the group consisting of: a copper mesh ([0045]), a nickel mesh, a nickel foil, a copper plated nickel mesh or foil, and a nickel-plated copper mesh or foil ([0033]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises an alkaline hydroxide selected from the group consisting of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, or a combination thereof (Yadav [0033]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 18, wherein the current collector is the nickel foil (Yadav [0033]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 19, wherein the electrolyte comprises potassium hydroxide (Yadav [0033]).
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US-20170110765-A1 cited in 03/21/2025 Office action) in view of Tomantschger et al. US-5300371-A and Abdalla et al. (Fabrication of nanoscale to macroscale nickel-multiwall carbon nanotube hybrid materials with tunable material properties, copy provided with this Office action)
Regarding claim 1-2, 9, and 33-36, Yadav discloses a battery comprising: a housing 6; an electrolyte disposed in the housing; and an anode comprising an anode material 5 ([0019], FIG. 1) such as zinc and zinc oxide ([0045]) disposed in the housing; and a cathode 12 disposed in the housing 6 and comprising a cathode material 2 comprising manganese dioxide and a bismuth oxide ([0019-0020], [0022], FIG. 1).
Yadav discloses the inclusion of a conductive carbon ([0024]), an experimental embodiment of the battery produced using carbon nanotubes as the conductive carbon ([0045]), reading on portions of claim 1, and further envisions replacing some part of the conductive carbon with a conductive metal additive such as Ni, Cu, Al, Co, or Ag and salts thereof ([0025]), an experimental embodiment using Ni metal ([0054]). However, Yadav fails to further provide a conductive carbon coated with a material comprising an oxide/hydroxide phase of Ni, Cu, Sn, Al, Co, or Ag wherein the material forms a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface of the conductive carbon as claimed.
Tomantschger, analogous as a battery with a MnO2 cathode (Tomantschger col. 14 ln. 1-10), teaches that carbon fibers plated with metals such as silver and nickel are substitutable equivalents to carbon fibers for the same purpose as conductive additives (Tomantschger col. 14 ln 65—col. 15 ln. 12).
It is further known in the art as taught by Abdalla, directed to a multiwall carbon nanotube plating process (Abdalla, abstract), that CNTs plated with a material (e.g., Ni) which forms a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface of the CNT also have improved electrical conductivity and have utility in electrochemical and energy storage technologies (p. 1 ¶1-2, p. 3 ¶1).
Thus, in seeking to improve the electrical conductivity of Yadav’s conductive carbon comprising carbon nanotubes, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to coat Yadav’s conductive carbon with a material comprising nickel, wherein the material forms a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface on the conductive carbon comprising carbon nanotubes as taught by Abdalla. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Tomantschger teaches plated conductive carbons as substitutable equivalents to conductive carbons as conductive additives in Yadav’s MnO2-type battery, and because Yadav recognizes Ni metal as a suitable conductive additive (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Yadav modified in view of Tomantschger and Abdalla fails to expressly disclose that the metallic layer formed as a plated coating is formed by coating the conductive carbon with a material comprising an oxide or hydroxide-phase of nickel, copper, tin, aluminum, cobalt, or silver as claimed in claim 1. However, in the method for coating the conductive carbon, nickel is deposited on CNTs mixed with a Ni-containing plating solution (about 4.4*10-2 mol/L Ni ions from 1.7g NiCl2, 1.1 g NiSO4·6H2O in 100mL water) where sodium hydroxide is then introduced into the solution during electroplating to maintain a pH≈9 (i.e., 10-5M OH-) (Abdalla p. 3 ¶4). Hydroxides of nickel have a very low molar solubility (Ksp = 5.48×10−16), where in Abdalla’s plating solution mixture:
[Ni2+][OH-]^2= 4.4*10-2 * (10-5M)2 = 4.4*10-12 ≥ Ksp of 5.48×10−16
such that at least some portion of hydroxide-phase nickel would necessarily precipitate as a residual component in the material forming a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface of the conductive carbon.
Yadav’s cathode material further comprises copper (“copper metal”) or a copper-based compound (“an organic or inorganic salt of copper…[or] a copper oxide”) in order to alter the oxidation/reduction voltages of bismuth and ensure full cycling reversibility (Yadav [0023]). As Yadav teaches a finite set of copper/copper-based materials as identified solutions to ensure cycling reversibility, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore selecting copper oxide for use in the cathode, thus reading on claim 2, and on claim 9 where the cathode comprises the copper-based compound, and wherein the copper-based compound comprises at least one of copper (I) oxide or copper (II) oxide (MPEP 2143 I. E).
Moreover, the copper or copper-based compounds are chemically or physically combined and incorporated with the cathode comprising the conductive carbon during manufacture ([0023,0027]). In modified Yadav’s battery comprising copper oxide and comprising a conductive carbon coated with a material forming the metallic layer as a plated coating, chemically or physically combining the copper oxide cause at least some amount of copper oxide to be incorporated into the material forming the conductive carbon’s coating during, as the (coated) conductive carbon is present in the cathode when the copper or copper-based compound is incorporated ([0027]).
In other words, modified Yadav’s conductive carbon is coated with a material comprising an oxide phase of copper, and a hydroxide phase of nickel, wherein the material forms a metallic layer formed as a plated coating on an exterior surface on the conductive carbon, reading on members of the group of claim 1 (“oxide or hydroxide-phase of nickel, copper, tin, aluminum, cobalt, or silver,”), of claim 33 (“oxide or hydroxide-phase of nickel, copper, or a combination thereof”), of claim 34 (“oxide or hydroxide-phase of nickel”), of claim 35 (“oxide or hydroxide-phase of copper”), and of claim 36 (“oxide or hydroxide-phase of nickel and copper”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/05/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 12, 16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yadav in view of Wu et al. (“Metal (Ni, Co)-Metal Oxides/Graphene Nanocomposites as Multifunctional Electrocatalysts”; copy provided in 03/05/2026 Office action) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yadav in view of Abdalla and Tomantschger as applied above.
Applicant cites unexpected results in the claimed invention over the prior art, particularly, improvements to the energy efficiency without limiting the capacity or using specialized membranes. Applicant cites ¶0015 and notes the effect of the plated carbon at maintaining potential by preventing zincate interaction (Remarks p. 11-13)
While the evidence of Applicant’s unexpected results has been considered, it has not been found persuasive, as it is unclear from Applicant’s disclosure the mechanism of how the metallic coated conductive carbon mitigates potential loss due to the zincate effect or improves the energy efficiency. Thus, it is not clear whether Applicant’s results are indeed unexpected and furthermore, not simply inherent properties of the prior art.
Applicant specification paragraphs ¶[0015] and ¶[0037] discuss the zincate effect, reciting:
“coating a metallic layer, preferably nickel (Ni), over carbon which is the conductive component of the BBC electrode. The metallic coated carbon interacts with the BBC active material in an efficient way to minimize the effect of Zn, and thus, maintain potential while delivering the complete 2nd electron capacity.” ([0015], emphasis by Examiner)
“a metallic layer can be deposited on the carbon to maintain the cathode's enhanced properties even in the presence of dissolved zinc in the electrolyte. Dissolved zinc or zincate is known to interact with the manganese dioxide to create a resistive material (haetaerolite, ZnMn2O4) that losses potential and capacity. The bismuth and copper or their compound-based additives help maintain the capacity loss; however, potential loss is still an issue. The metallic layer on carbon helps maintain the potential in the cells that eventually lead to an energy dense cathode and battery” ([0037], emphasis by Examiner)
From Applicant’s disclosure, it is not clear whether the unexpected results of improved cycling potential retention are an effect of the metallic coated carbon as a whole, or only of the metal distributed throughout the cathode. Particularly, Yadav discusses the use of conductive metal additives but not the metallic coated carbon in the cathode (Yadav [0025]), which nonetheless appear to produce a similar or identical effect of stabilizing the cycling potential ([0056], FIGs. 8A, 8B).
Furthermore, it is not shown how the metallic coated carbon interacts with the active material or zincate in the battery. Does the metallic coated carbon maintain the potential by inhibiting the formation of haetaerolite resistive material, or, instead of directly impacting haetaerolite formation, is the interface between metallic coated carbon and the active material unaffected by haetaerolite formation? Or, is the metallic coated carbon simply more electrically conductive than uncoated carbon? It is known in the prior art that the metallic coating on CNTs often desirably improves the material compatibility and conductivity of the CNT (Abdalla p. 10 ¶6), such that these improvements would be expected to some degree in the modification of Yadav to utilize metallic coated CNT.
Additionally, it is not clear how from Applicant’s experiments how much of the cycling potential improvement is attributable to effects on haetaerolite formation (if any) relative to effects from mitigating other resistive phases (e.g., manganese hydroxide); Yadav’s conductive metal additives are noted to mitigate non-conductive Mn(OH)2 formation, and transition metals reduce Mn3+ ions ([0025]), thus stabilizing the cycling potential even without necessarily affecting the zincate effect ([0056], FIGs. 8A, 8B).
For the above reasons, it is not clear to the examiner whether Applicant’s cited improvements to cycling potential reduction are indeed unexpected over the prior art, particularly given the similar effects of Yadav’s conductive metal additive on improved cycling potential (MPEP 716.02 c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights