SEPARATORS FOR AQUEOUS ZINC-ION CELLS AND BATTERIES, ZINC METAL BATTERIES, AND METHODS OF FABRICATING A SEPARATOR FOR USE IN A ZINC METAL BATTERY
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
In response to communication filed on 2/11/2026:
Claim 77 has been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been upheld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “According to the excerpt cited above, Kawakami is directed to an ion conductive member in which ionic conduction occurs through a polymer gel electrolyte itself. The polymer gel is described as being impregnated with an electrolyte solution and measured as a continuous gel layer between opposing electrodes. Kawakami therefore discloses a solid or gel polymer electrolyte having an ion-conductive polymer matrix that carries the electrolyte rather than a porous separator structure having interconnected pores through which the electrolyte diffuses from a first side to a second side. The Examiner appears to rely on Kawakami to fill perceived gaps in Adams, but Kawakami does not disclose the missing teachings.
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Col. 6, lines 38-57 of Kawakami disclose the conductive membrane is a separator having ion channels. Further, the examples disclose the separator can be comprises of polypropylene (See Examples) in addition to be comprised of polyethylene or polyethylene oxide (Col. 5, line 67-Col. 6, line 3; Col. 7, line 66-Col. 9, line 23). Therefore, there is overlap of separator materials between Adams and Kawakami.
The Applicant discloses: “Kawakami neither discloses a porous membrane nor any surface modification strategies relevant to pore walls. These distinctions demonstrate that Kawakami cannot bridge the gaps identified in Adams and thus cannot render the claimed pore structure or surface functionality obvious.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant discloses: “Referring to claim 79 and paragraph 30 of the instant Office action, Applicant respectfully disputes Examiner's contention that "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a liquid coming into contact with a solid, yet porous, surface occurs at an angle of 0°. A hydrophilic liquid (such as water or the claimed electrolyte) coming into contact with a hydrophobic solid will not occur at an angle of 0 degrees regardless of the presence of pores.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The Applicant does not provide an explanation why a hydrophilic liquid (such as water or the claimed electrolyte) coming into contact with a hydrophobic solid will not occur at an angle of 0 degrees regardless of the presence of pores. The actual direct contact between a drop of liquid and a surface will be a horizontal straight line which has a slope of 0. Therefore, 0 degrees.
The Applicant discloses: “Referring to claim 82 and paragraph 36 of the instant Office action, Applicant respectfully disputes Examiner's contention that "Kawakami et al. teach wherein the oxidative treatment includes an aqueous bath containing any one or more of persulfate (S2O82-), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and ozone (O3) oxidant." Kawakami at col. 9, line 58 to col. 10, line 5 in fact discloses initiators for a radical polymerization reaction and not compounds for the oxidative treatment of a separator.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Claims 81 and 82 disclose an oxidative treatment in order to increase hydrophilicity. Kawakami discloses the exact same material (persulfate) in order to do this. While the type of treatment is different (radical polymerization vs oxidative treatment), this is merely a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113 I).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 72, 74-76, 78-82, and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (WO 2019/095075 A1) and further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 6,372,387 B1).
Regarding claims 72, 74-76, and 85, Adams et al. teach a rechargeable battery (Paragraphs 0002-0003; Fig. 1, element 100) comprising:
a negative electrode comprising zinc metal (Abstract; Fig. 1, element 10 disclose a negative electrode comprising zinc metal.);
a positive electrode (Abstract; Fig. 1, element 20 discloses a positive electrode.);
an electrolyte with pH in the range of 4-7 comprising water and dissolved zinc salts (Paragraphs 0055-0056 disclose an electrolyte with a pH between 4-6. The electrolyte includes a zinc salt dissolved in water.); and
a separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (Paragraph 0058 discloses a separator, element 3, interposed between the negative electrode, element 10, and the positive electrode, element 20.);
wherein the separator comprises a membrane layer (Paragraphs 0058-0061);
wherein the membrane layer includes a first side facing the negative electrode and a second side facing the positive electrode (Fig. 1, element 3 discloses a side facing a negative electrode, element 10, and an opposite side facing a positive electrode, element 20.);
wherein the separator includes a plurality of pores containing the electrolyte (Paragraphs 0058; 0061; 0089 disclose the separator being wetted with electrolyte. Further, the separator is a microporous silica-coated polyethylene separator soaked in ZnSO4 and water.)
and
wherein, during normal operation, zinc cations move between the negative electrode and the positive electrode through the separator (Paragraph 0052).
However, Adams et al. do not teach wherein the pores are connected to form a diffusion pathway from the first side to the second side.
Kawakami et al. disclose a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode and a positive electrode which oppose each other (Fig. 3B, elements 304 and 305; Fig. 6, elements 604 and 607) and an ion conductive member (Figs. 3a and 3b, element 301; Fig. 6, element 601) which includes a layered or columnar structure (ion channels) in its matrix and which is sandwiched between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (Figs 3a and 3b, element 302; Fig. 6, element 602 disclose ion channels.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adams with Kawakami in order to suppress the growth of zinc dendrites.
Regarding claim 78, the combination of Adams and Kawakami et al. teach the battery of claim 72. However, they do not teach wherein the separator has a puncture resistance of 20-1500 gram-force.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 79, the combination of Adams and Kawakami et al. teach the battery of claim 72. However, Adams et al. do not specifically teach wherein a contact angle between the electrolyte and a membrane surface is less than 90°.
Adams et al. teach the separator is soaked in an electrolyte (Paragraph 0089). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a liquid coming into contact with a solid, yet porous, surface occurs at an angle of 0°.
Regarding claim 80, the combination of Adams and Kawakami et al. teach the battery of claim 72. However, Adams et al. do not specifically teach wherein wicking time for the electrolyte into the membrane is in the range of 0 s-20 mins.
This is merely a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113 I: I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 81, the combination of Adams and Kawakami et al. teach the battery of claim 72. Further, Kawakami et al. teach wherein the membrane is treated to increase hydrophilicity using an oxidative treatment (Col. 46, lines 38-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adams with Kawakami in order to suppress the growth of zinc dendrites.
Regarding claim 82, the combination of Adams and Kawakami et al. teach the battery of claim 81. Further, Kawakami et al. teach wherein the oxidative treatment includes an aqueous bath containing any one or more of persulfate (S2O82-), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and ozone (O3) oxidant (Col. 9, line 58 to Col. 10, line 5 disclose potassium or ammonium persulfate and peroxides.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adams with Kawakami in order to suppress the growth of zinc dendrites.
Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (WO 2019/095075 A1) and Kawakami et al. (US 6,372,387 B1) and further in view of Roumi et al. (US 2016/0013463 A1).
Regarding claim 73, the combination of Adams and Kawakami et al. teach the battery of claim 72. However, they do not teach wherein the separator includes a plurality of membrane layers, wherein a composition a first membrane layer is distinct from a composition of a second membrane layer.
Roumi et al. teach membranes for electrochemical cells (Abstract). Further, the separators include a plurality of membrane layers, wherein a composition a first membrane layer is distinct from a composition of a second membrane layer (Figs. 4-11; paragraphs 0028-0032;0084-0091 teach separator layer, elements 3, 4, and 5 wherein each layer comprises a different composition.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adams and Kawkami with Roumi in order to improve mechanical strength.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (WO 2019/095075 A1) and Kawakami et al. (US 6,372,387 B1) and further in view of Gerald et al. (US 8,541,129 B1).
Regarding claim 77, the combination of Adams and Kawakami et al. teach the battery of claim 72. However, they do not teach wherein a membrane has a porosity of 20-90% and a tortuosity of 1-5.
Gerald et al. disclose a separator-electrolyte membrane comprising a plurality of pores running the width of the layer (Claim 1). The membrane has a porosity of at least 30% (Claim 9) and a tortuosity of less than about 2 (Claim 10), preferably at unity (Col. 7, lines 13-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adams and Kawakami with Gerald in order to increase rates of conductivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 83 and 84 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 83 and 84 are not disclosed in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 3rd, 2026