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 filed 21 Jul 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US 2018/0323429) in view of Harada et al. (JP 2015197976), Applicant argues that the combined references of Yadav in view of Harada do not teach the claimed invention because Harada’s teaching of an additive (see e.g. aluminum nanoparticles, Harada: [0001] and [0007]) is directed toward the use of this additive to form a uniform dispersion in an electrode mixture for rate and cycle improvement. In Applicant’s view, Harada does not teach nanoparticles that coagulate zincate ions, retain zinc reaction products at or near the anode, or solve the shape change and zinc migration problem addressed by the instantly-claimed invention, and therefore Harada does not teach the claimed electrocoagulant material
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the additive taught by Harada meets all of the compositional and structural limitations of the claimed electrocoagulant, and therefore reads on the electrocoagulant. Further, it has been held that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest a combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the Applicant (see MPEP § 2144 IV, “RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE”). That is, a motivation to combine two prior art references may be valid even if the rationale for combining two prior art references is different from the advantage or result discovered by Applicant. In the instant case, Harada teaches an improved rate and cycle performance arising from the use of an aluminum nanoparticle additive, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 below, which would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to include Harada’s electrocoagulant in Yadav’s anode material.
Applicant further argues that the combination of Yadav and Harada does not meet the limitations of claim 18, which has been amended to require that the electrolyte comprises an electrocoagulant material present in an alkaline electrolyte.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that these newly-amended claim limitations are taught by Yadav in view of Nakamura (US 2017/0358818) as set forth in detail in the rejection of claim 18 below.
Applicant further argues that Yadav in view of Harada does not teach the claimed electrocoagulation material of claim 2 because Harada is directed toward a different material arrangement and a different mechanism. In Applicant’s view, the Harada reference does not teach or suggest an electrocoagulant comprising aluminum hydroxide, or a salt thereof, that generates aqueous aluminum complex ions during cycling to coagulate dissolved zinc reaction products and retain those reaction products at or near the anode. Rather, Harada is directed toward a different mechanism from the electrocoagulation of dissolved zinc products as claimed in the amended claim 2. Further, argues Applicant, it has not been established that the nanoparticles taught by Harada would result in the claimed electrocoagulation function.
The Examiner disagrees, and maintains that Harada teaches a nanoparticle material that meets all of the compositional and structural limitations of the claimed electrocoagulant material and can reasonably be said to read on the claimed electrocoagulant material. Further, Harada teaches an improved rate and cycle performance arising from the use of an aluminum nanoparticle additive, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 below, which would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to include Harada’s electrocoagulant in Yadav’s anode material. The combination of the teachings of Harada and Yadav is therefore still valid even if Applicant has identified additional new benefits that were not recognized by the prior art references.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner has not established that the material taught by Harada would necessarily produce the electrocoagulant effect described in claim 2.
The Examiner submits that a prima facie case for obviousness can be made when a claimed product and a prior art product are substantially identical in structure or composition, even if the prior art is silent as to the properties of the product (see MPEP § 2112.01). In the instant case, the material taught by Harada meets all of the claimed compositional and structural limitations of the claimed material, and therefore it is presumed that Harada’s material has a substantially similar electrocoagulant effect. Further, Applicant has not presented any evidence or argument to establish that the material taught by Harada would not produce the claimed electrocoagulant effect.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav (US 2018/0323429) in view of Harada (JP 2015197976, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Yadav discloses a battery (see e.g. battery 10, [0053] and Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (see e.g. housing 6, [0053], and Fig. 1);
an electrolyte disposed in the housing (see e.g. electrolyte, dispersed within battery 10, [0053]), wherein the electrolyte comprises an alkaline electrolyte (see e.g. [0083]-[0084], the electrolyte may comprise potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide, which are alkaline electrolytes);
a cathode disposed in the housing (see e.g. cathode current collector 1, [0053] and Fig. 1); and
an anode disposed in the housing (see e.g. anode current collector 4, [0053] and Fig. 1) and comprising an anode material comprising:
a zinc or zinc oxide (see e.g. anode material 5, [0053] and Fig. 1, anode material 5 may comprise zinc or zinc oxide, see e.g. [0057] and [0075]) and
a binder (see e.g. binder, [0075]).
Yadav does not disclose an electrocoagulant material selected from the group consisting of: aluminum, iron, titanium, calcium, zirconium, a hydroxide thereof, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, or a combination thereof, and wherein the electrocoagulant material is in a form selected from: a powder, a substrate, a material dissolved in the electrolyte, or any combination thereof; and wherein the anode comprises 13-30 wt.% of the electrocoagulant material.
Harada, also working in the field of zinc anodes for battery systems, teaches an anode material comprising zinc (see e.g. zinc electrode mixture, comprising a zinc-containing compound, Harada: [0001] and [0007]) and further comprising an electrocoagulant material (see e.g. nanoparticles, which are dispersed with the zinc electrode material and read on the claimed electrocoagulant material, Harada: [0007]) selected from the group consisting of: aluminum, iron, titanium, calcium, zirconium, a hydroxide thereof, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, or a combination thereof (see e.g. Harada: [0024]-[0025], stating that the nanoparticles may contain Al, Ti, Ca, Zr, or hydroxides, oxides, or salts thereof), and wherein the electrocoagulant material is in a form selected from: a powder, a substrate, a material dissolved in the electrolyte, or any combination thereof (see e.g. nanoparticles, which read on the claimed powder, Harada: [0001] and [0007]);
and wherein the anode comprises 13-30 wt.% of the electrocoagulant material (see e.g. Harada: [0030] teaches an anode material that is 0.01 to 60% by mass nanoparticles, which read on the claimed electrocoagulant. This range overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 13-30 wt%).
Harada further teaches that the addition of this electrocoagulant to the anode material improves the performance of the zinc electrode (see e.g. Harada: [0007], stating that nanoparticles uniformly dispersed in the electrode mixture improve the electrode), suppresses battery performance degradation, and improves rate characteristics (see e.g. Harada: [0024]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Yadav by adding to the anode material the electrocoagulant material taught by Harada, wherein said electrocoagulant material is selected from the group consisting of: aluminum, iron, titanium, calcium, zirconium, a hydroxide thereof, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, or a combination thereof, and wherein the electrocoagulant material is in a form selected from: a powder, a substrate, a material dissolved in the electrolyte, or any combination thereof; and wherein the anode comprises 13-30 wt.% of the electrocoagulant material. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition to Yadav’s battery because Harada teaches that the addition of such an electrocoagulant improves the performance of the zinc, suppresses battery performance degradation, and improves rate characteristics of the battery.
As to claim 2, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the electrocoagulant material comprises aluminum, a hydroxide thereof, or a salt thereof (see e.g. Harada: [0024]-[0025], stating that the nanoparticles may contain Al, hydroxides, oxides, or salts thereof).
Yadav in view of Harada does not explicitly state that Yadav in view of Harada’s electrocoagulant material is configured to generate aqueous aluminum complex ions during cycling of the battery, wherein the aqueous aluminum complex ions coagulate one or more dissolved reaction products of the zinc or zinc oxide and retain the one or more dissolved reaction products at or near the anode.
However, a prima facie case for obviousness can be made when a claimed product and a prior art product are substantially identical in structure or composition, even if the prior art is silent as to the properties of the product (see MPEP § 2112.01). In the instant case, the electrocoagulant material taught by Yadav in view of Harada meets all of the structural and compositional limitations of the claimed electrocoagulant material. It is therefore reasonably presumed that the electrocoagulant material of Yadav in view of Harada also possesses the property that it is configured to generate aqueous aluminum complex ions during cycling of the battery, wherein the aqueous aluminum complex ions coagulate one or more dissolved reaction products of the zinc or zinc oxide and retain the one or more dissolved reaction products at or near the anode.
As to claim 5, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the electrocoagulant material is aluminum, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum oxide, aluminum oxinate, aluminum hydroxide hydrate, titanium, titanium hydroxide, titanium hydroxide hydrate, titanium oxide, calcium, calcium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide hydrate, calcium oxide, zirconium, zirconium hydroxide, zirconium hydroxide hydrate, zirconium oxide, or a combination thereof (see e.g. Harada: [0024]-[0025], stating that the nanoparticles, which read on the claimed electrocoagulant, may contain Al, Ti, Ca, Zr, or hydroxides, oxides, or salts thereof).
As to claim 7, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the binder comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene, a cellulose-based hydrogel, or a combination thereof (see e.g. TEFLON, which comprises polytetrafluoroethylene, and cellulose that includes cellulose, Yadav: [0068]-[0069]).
As to claim 14, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the cathode is selected from the group consisting of manganese dioxide, copper intercalated birnessite, birnessite, vanadium oxide, alpha-manganese dioxide (MnO2), nickel oxyhydroxide, nickel hydroxide, silver, copper, bromine, and air (see e.g. Yadvav: [0071], teaching that the cathode material 2 may comprise MnO2, and may also comprise copper or silver).
As to claim 15, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1, further comprising a current collector for the cathode or the anode (see e.g. cathode current collector 1, Yadav: [0070] and Fig. 1), the current collector selected from the group consisting of a copper mesh, a copper foil, a nickel mesh, a nickel foil, a copper plated nickel mesh or foil, and a nickel- plated copper mesh or foil (see e.g. Yadav: [0070], the cathode current collector 1 may comprise copper mesh, copper foil, nickel mesh, or a nickel-plated copper mesh).
As to claim 16, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1 wherein the electrolyte comprises an alkaline hydroxide selected from the group consisting of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, cesium hydroxide, rubidium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide or a combination thereof (see e.g. Yadav: [0084], the electrolyte may be potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, cesium hydroxide, or lithium hydroxide).
As to claim 17, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1, further comprising a polymeric separator (see e.g. separator 3, Yadav: [0053]) between the anode and the cathode (see e.g. Yadav: [0053] and Fig. 1, separator 3 is disposed between anode current collector 4 and cathode current collector 1).
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav (US 2018/0323429) in view of Harada (JP 2015197976, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Csrenko et al. (US 2014/0023942).
As to claim 4, Yadav in view of Harada teaches battery of claim 1.
Yadav in view of Harada does not teach a battery wherein the anode further comprises a conductive metal additive, and wherein the conductive metal additive is copper, a copper salt, nickel, or a nickel salt.
Csrenko et al., also working in the field of active materials for a battery cell, teaches a zinc electrode that comprises particulate copper as a conductivity-improving additive (see e.g. Csrenko et al.: [0019]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to add copper to the anode of the battery of Yadav in view of Harada. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition because Csrenko et al. teaches that a copper additive improves the conductivity of the electrode.
As to claim 6, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1.
Yadav in view of Harada does not teach a battery wherein the anode further comprises a conductive metal additive wherein the conductive metal additive is nickel, copper, silver, gold, brass, bronze, cobalt, nickel-cobalt, nickel-copper, bismuth, bismuth oxide, tin, or a combination thereof.
Csrenko et al., also working in the field of active materials for a battery cell, teaches a zinc electrode that comprises particulate copper as a conductivity-improving additive (see e.g. Csrenko et al.: [0019]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to add copper to the anode of the battery of Yadav in view of Harada. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition because Csrenko et al. teaches that a copper additive improves the conductivity of the electrode.
As to claim 10, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1 wherein the anode comprises greater than 0 wt.% and less than or equal to 10 wt.% of the binder (see e.g. Yadav: [0078], teaching a binder present in an amount of 2 wt% to 10 wt%, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range), and a remainder of the anode as zinc or zinc oxide (see e.g. Yadav: [0075], stating that the remainder of the anode material is zinc or zinc oxide).
Yadav in view of Harada does not teach a battery wherein the anode comprises greater than 0 wt.% and less than or equal to 10 wt.% of a conductive metal additive.
Csrenko et al., also working in the field of active materials for a battery cell, teaches a zinc electrode that comprises a conductive metal additive (see e.g. particulate copper, Csrenko et al.: [0019]) such that the conductive metal additive is present in an amount of 0 wt% to 10 wt% , which renders obvious the instantly-claimed range (see e.g. Csrenko et al.: [0022]). Csrenko et al. further teaches that this conductive metal additive works as a as a conductivity-improving additive (see e.g. Csrenko et al.: [0019]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to add greater than 0 wt.% and less than or equal to 10 wt.% of a conductive metal additive to the anode of Yadav in view of Harada. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition because Csrenko et al. teaches that a copper additive present in an amount of greater than 0 wt% to less than 10 wt% improves the conductivity of the electrode.
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav (US 2018/0323429) in view of Harada (JP 2015197976, as read via machine translation) and Csrenko et al. (US 2014/0023942) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (WO 2008/051508).
As to claim 11, Yadav in view of Harada and Csrenko et al. teaches the battery of claim 10, which includes a zinc or zinc oxide (see e.g. anode material 5, Yadav: [0053] and Fig. 1, anode material 5 may comprise zinc or zinc oxide, see e.g.Yadav: [0057] and [0075]).
Yadav in view of Harada and Csrenko et al. does not teach a battery in which the zinc or zinc oxide comprises a gassing inhibitor.
Wu et al., also working on the problem of electrode materials, teaches the addition of 10 ppm to 500 ppm of an indium compound (see e.g. In(OH)3, which reads on the claimed gassing inhibitor, Wu et al.: [0043]) to an anode to act as a gassing inhibitor (see e.g. Wu et al.: [0043]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Yadav in view of Harada and Csrenko et al. by adding 0.004 wt% to 0.2 wt% of the gassing inhibitor taught by Wu et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition in order to inhibit the production of gas within the battery, as taught by Wu et al..
As to claim 12, Yadav in view of Harada, Csrenko et al., and Wu et al. teaches the battery of claim 11, wherein the gassing inhibitor is bismuth or indium compounds (see e.g. In(OH)3, Wu et al.: [0043]) in a concentration greater than 0 ppm and less than 1 wt.% (see e.g. Wu et al.: [0043] teaches that the In(OH)3 indium compound is present in an amount of 10 ppm to 500 ppm. This quantity of 10 ppm to 500 ppm amounts to roughly 0.004 wt% to 0.2 wt%, given a molar mass of 260 g/mol for In(OH)3 and assuming the rest of the anode is mostly Zn, with a molar mass of 65 g/mol, because
1 mol Zn = 65g
1 mol Zn * 10 mol In(OH)3 per 1,000,000 mol Zn = 0.00001 mol In(OH)3
0.00001 mol In(OH)3 * 260 g/mol = 0.0026g In(OH)3
0.0026g In(OH)3 / 65g total mass = 0.004 wt% In(OH)3
1 mol Zn = 65g
1 mol Zn * 500 mol In(OH)3 per 1,000,000 mol Zn = 0.0005 mol In(OH)3
0.0005 mol In(OH)3 * 260 g/mol = 0.13g In(OH)3
0.13g In(OH)3 / 65g total mass = 0.2 wt% In(OH)3
This quantity 0.004 wt% to 0.2 wt% lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 0 ppm to 1 wt%).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav (US 2018/0323429) in view of Harada (JP 2015197976, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 105742648, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 13, Yadav in view of Harada teaches the battery of claim 1, which includes an anode (anode current collector 4, Yadav: [0053] and Fig. 1).
Yadav in view of Harada is silent as to the porosity of the anode, and does not teach an anode having a porosity between 5-95%.
Sun et al., also working in the field of zinc batteries, teaches a battery comprising a zinc electrode having a porosity of 20-95%, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed range of 5-95% (see e.g. metal-based zinc material, Sun et al.: [0008] and [0013]-[0015]). Sun et al. further teaches that this high porosity value allows the electrolyte to contact a sufficient number of zinc particles (see e.g. Sun et al.: [0025]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Yadav in view of Harada by designing the anode to have a porosity of 5-95%, as taught by Sun et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition in order to allow the electrolyte to contact a sufficient number of zinc particles, as taught by Sun et al..
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav (US 2018/0323429) in view of Nakamura (US 2017/0358818).
As to claim 18, Yadav discloses a battery (see e.g. battery 10, [0053] and Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (see e.g. housing 6, [0053], and Fig. 1);
an electrolyte disposed in the housing (see e.g. electrolyte, dispersed within battery 10, [0053]), wherein the electrolyte comprises an alkaline electrolyte (see e.g. [0083]-[0084], the electrolyte may comprise potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide, which are alkaline electrolytes);
a cathode disposed in the housing (see e.g. cathode current collector 1, [0053] and Fig. 1); and
a cathode disposed in the housing (see e.g. cathode current collector 1, [0053] and Fig. 1); and
an anode disposed in the housing (see e.g. anode current collector 4, [0053] and Fig. 1) and comprising an anode material comprising:
a zinc or zinc oxide (see e.g. anode material 5, [0053] and Fig. 1, anode material 5 may comprise zinc or zinc oxide, see e.g. [0057] and [0075]) and
a binder (see e.g. binder, [0075]).
Yadav does not disclose an electrocoagulant material selected from the group consisting of: aluminum a hydroxide thereof, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, and a combination thereof, and wherein the electrocoagulant material is present in the electrolyte in a form selected from: a powder, a substrate, a material dissolved in the electrolyte, or any combination thereof; wherein the electrolyte comprises 1-30 wt.% of the electrocoagulant material.
Nakamura, also working in the field of battery design, teaches the use of an electrocoagulant material selected from the group consisting of: aluminum a hydroxide thereof, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, and a combination thereof (see e.g. surface-modified aluminum hydroxide, Nakamura: [0079]), wherein the electrocoagulant material is present in the electrolyte in a form selected from: a powder, a substrate, a material dissolved in the electrolyte, or any combination thereof (see e.g. Nakamura: [0025] and [0084], the aluminum hydroxide is present in the electrolyte in a particulate form that reads on a powder). Nakamura’s electrocoagulant is present in the electrolyte in a amount of 1-20% by mass, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1-30% (see e.g. Nakamura: [0086]). Nakamura further teaches that adding this electrocoagulant to the electrolyte of a battery improves the cycle characteristics of the battery (see e.g. Nakamura: [0012] and [0025]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Yadav by adding to Yadav’s electrolyte an electrocoagulant material selected from the group consisting of: aluminum a hydroxide thereof, a salt thereof, an oxide thereof, and a combination thereof, and wherein the electrocoagulant material is present in the electrolyte in a form selected from: a powder, a substrate, a material dissolved in the electrolyte, or any combination thereof; wherein the electrolyte comprises 1-30 wt.% of the electrocoagulant material, as taught by Nakamura. Said artisan would have found such a modification to be obvious because Nakamura teaches that the addition of such an electrocoagulant improves the cycling performance of the battery.
As to claim 19, Yadav in view of Nakamura teaches the battery of claim 18, wherein the electrocoagulant material comprises aluminum and a hydroxide thereof (see e.g. aluminum hydroxide, Nakamura: [0079]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa, Masashi, et al., Journal of Power Sources,146.1-2 (2005): 199-203) teaches the use of the aluminum salt AlI3 as an electrolyte additive for enhancing Li cycleability (see Abstract).
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights