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 and 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of an anode active material layer comprising a zinc oxide (ZnO) active material and an additive comprising a hydroxide including, Mg [Mg(OH)2] in the reply filed on 6-17-2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6-17-2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charkey (5,556,720) in view of Kainthla et al. (US 2003/0113630). Charkey teaches a zinc secondary battery comprising a zinc negative electrode comprising a zinc active material, Ba(OH)2 or Sr(OH)2 and a conductive matrix including a metallic oxide. Charkey teaches in Example 1, a nickel-zinc battery comprising a zinc electrode comprising 64.5 weight % ZnO, 25 weight % Sr(OH)2, 8 weight % PbO and 2.5 weight % PTFE. Charkey teaches in column 3, lines 18-29, that that the concentration of Ba(OH)2 or Sr(OH)2 in the negative electrode is in the range of 15-40% of the weight of the electrode. Charkey discloses the claimed invention teaching an active material layer comprising a Zn based material comprising ZnO and a hydroxide additive in an amount of 20-40 wt% in regard to the Zn based material but does not teach using Mg(OH)2 as the additive instead of Ba(OH)2 or Sr(OH)2. Kainthla et al. teaches an anodic zinc electrode for use in an alkaline based electrochemical cell comprising an active material composition comprising Zn and ZnO. Kainthla et al. teaches in [0015], that in a preferred embodiment, the anodic zinc electrode further comprises a zincate solubility modifier selected from the group consisting of Mg(OH)2, Sr(OH)2 , Ba(OH)2, Ca(OH)2 and mixtures thereof. Kainthla et al. teaches an Experiment No.1, preparing a battery comprising 104 g of zinc powder, 52 g of zinc oxide, 24 g of Ca(OH)2 , 2 g of CMC and 8 g of PbO. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Mg(OH)2 or instead of Sr(OH)2 or Ba(OH)2 as additive because Kainthla et al. teaches that these additives can be used in the anode as explained above and one would expect therefore that these additive materials would function in a similar way and give similar results. When Kainthla et al. teaches the same zinc negative active electrode material and an additive comprising Mg(OH)2, then inherently the same solubility (25°C) of the additive with respect to a potassium hydrate (KOH) aqueous solution of concentration of 6 M of 120 mg/L must also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the solubility (25°C) of the additive with respect to a potassium hydrate (KOH) aqueous solution of concentration of 6 M of 120 mg/L would have obviously have been present once the Kainthla et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pozin et al. (US 2007/0099050) teaches a zinc/air cell comprising zinc particles, an aqueous alkaline electrolyte and a pyrophosphate based (P2O7)4- additive. The addition of the pyrophosphate containing additive in an amount of 0.001-2% by weight to the zinc anode improves the cell’s service life. Pozin et al. teaches in [0015], that a compound containing pyrophosphate (P2O7)4- may be K4P2O7, Na4P2O7, an alkali earth metal pyrophosphate such as pyrophosphate based Mg2(P2O7), Sr2(P2O7), etc. Pozin et al. teaches in the Examples, [0057], the benefit of adding even a small amount of a pyrophosphate-based compound additive to the anodes of zinc/air cells. Control Cell J, teaches zinc particles and aqueous electrolyte comprising KOH and the concentration of about 35.3 weight % with 2 wt% ZnO versus [0059], Test Cell J-1, teaches zinc particles, aqueous electrolyte comprising KOH with the concentration of about 35.3 weight % with 2 wt% ZnO and FURTHER comprising 1000 parts by weight of K4P2O7.
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, Milton Cano can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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