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, see pp. 7-9, filed February 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 190, 191, 194-199, 201, and 202 under 35 USC 102, 103, and 112 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Chang et al. ("Effects of water-based binders on electrochemical performance of manganese dioxide cathode in mild aqueous zinc batteries," Carbon Energy 3(3), pp. 473-481, October 2020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 190 and 202 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. ("Effects of water-based binders on electrochemical performance of manganese dioxide cathode in mild aqueous zinc batteries," Carbon Energy 3(3), pp. 473-481, October 2020).
Regarding claim 190, Chang discloses a rechargeable battery comprising a zinc metal negative electrode; an electrolyte with a pH of 4.4, which falls within the range of the instant claim, comprising water and ZnSO4; and a positive electrode comprising a current collector (titanium foil) and a positive electrode active layer comprising a hydrophilic binder (CMC), a conductive additive (acetylene black), an active material that undergoes reversible faradaic reactions with zinc (MnO2), and a gelling agent (PVA) (Chang 2.1 Sample preparation and 2.2 Electrochemical measurements).
Regarding claim 202, the gelling agent comprises polyvinyl alcohol (Chang 2.1 Sample preparation).
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) 191, and 194-196, and 209 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 190 above, and further in view of Xu et al. ("Energetic Zinc Ion Chemistry: The Rechargeable Zinc Ion Battery," Angewandte Chemie International Edition 51(4), pp. 933-935, January 2012).
Regarding claim 209, Chang does not teach the use of a primer layer. Xu is directed to a rechargeable Zinc-ion battery (Xu title). Xu teaches that adding a primer layer comprising a binder (PVDF) and conductive particles (carbon black) to the current collector of a zinc-ion battery decreases contact resistance between the current collector and the active layer (Xu Supporting Information, Methods, 3rd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the primer layer of Xu to the zinc-ion battery of Chang to decrease contact resistance between the current collector and the active layer.
Regarding claim 191, the binder is PVDF (Xu Supporting Information, Methods), which is hydrophobic.
Regarding claim 194, the primer layer is 5 µm thick (Xu Supporting Information, Methods), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 195, the binder is hydrophobic, so the surface will necessarily be hydrophobic.
Regarding claim 196, carbon black particles comprise electrically conductive carbon (Xu Supporting Information, Methods).
Claim(s) 193 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Xu as applied to claim 209 above, and further in view of Busson et al. ("A primed current collector for high performance carbon-coated LiFePO4 electrodes with no carbon additive," Journal of Power Sources 406, pp. 7-17, December 2018).
Regarding claim 193, modified Chang does not teach that the primer coating layer provides a network of porous structures to increase the surface area of the current collector. Busson teaches that tailoring a primer coating to increase roughness of the current collector reinforces interfacial adhesion with the electrode (Busson Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to increase the roughness of the primer coating, which would necessarily create a network of pores and increase surface area, in order to improve interfacial adhesion with the electrode.
Claim(s) 197 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Xu as applied to claim 196 above, as evidenced by Hess et al. ("Carbon Black Morphology: I. Particle Microstructure. II. Automated EM Analysis of Aggregate Size and Shape," Rubber Chemistry and Technology 42(4), pp. 1209-1234, September 1969).
Regarding claim 197, the conductive particles comprise carbon black (Xu Supporting Information, Methods). Carbon black is formed as either spherical particles, fibrous particles, or aggregates of spherical primary particles (Hess, Results and Discussion and Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 198-199 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 190 above, and further in view of Yamahira (JP H0268855 A; citations refer to English translation attached to the office action mailed November 18, 2025).
Regarding claims 198 and 199, Chang does not teach the addition of a plasticizer to the positive electrode composite layer. Yamahira is directed to a method of forming an electrode layer on a current collector (Yamahira Abstract). Yamahira teaches that adding a weak organic acid such as oxalic acid to an active material binder improves adhesion to the current collector (Yamahira p. 3, [Effect] and [Example]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add any of the listed acids, including oxalic acid, to the binder of modified Chang in order to improve adhesion.
Claim(s) 210 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claim 190 above, and further in view of Dai et al. (CN 111384397 A; citations refer to attached English translation) and Kakiage et al. (US 2022/0328834 A1).
Regarding claim 210, Chang does not teach the use of polyvinyl formal or nanocrystalline cellulose.
Dai is directed to a binder for a secondary battery electrode (Dai [0002]). Dai teaches that water-soluble binders for electrodes include polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl acetal (Dai [0015]). Polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl acetal are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute a polyvinyl acetal, including polyvinyl formal, for the polyvinyl alcohol of Chang.
Kakiage is directed to a binder for a secondary battery electrode (Kakiage Abstract). Kakiage teaches that cellulose-based binders for electrodes include carboxymethyl cellulose and cellulose nanocrystal (Kakiage [0055]). Carboxymethyl cellulose and cellulose nanocrystal are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute cellulose nanocrystal for the carboxymethyl cellulose of Chang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oh et al. (US Patent 6,187,475 B1) discloses an electrode for a zinc-ion battery comprising a binder selected from a group including polyvinyl alcohol (Oh Claim 6).
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights