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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-5 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/2025.
The examiner acknowledges that Claim 6 has been amended to be dependent upon Independent Claim 5. After further consideration of amended Claim 6, the examiner maintains that the original basis of restriction (see Requirement for Restriction dated 08/25/2025) still applies to the amended claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in Figure 6 is not legible and the text making up the legend in Figures 7 and 8 is not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an anode for zinc metal battery” in line 1. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “an anode for a zinc metal battery” to improve readability.
Claims 2-5 recite “the anode for zinc metal battery” in line 1. Following the amendment suggestion for Claim 1 above, the examiner further suggests amending line 1 of Claims 2-5 to read “the anode for a zinc metal battery” to improve readability.
Claim 2 recites “wherein PO-, HPO-, ZnPO- and ZnHPO- peaks are detected from the protective layer in ToF-SIMS analysis”. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “wherein PO-, HPO-, ZnPO-, and ZnHPO- peaks are detected from the protective layer in ToF-SIMS analysis” in order to clarify that ZnPO- and ZnHPO- are detected individually as separate species in separate peaks.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the range “5 to 15 nm” in line 2. For enhanced clarity, the examiner suggests amending to recite the unit behind both the lower bound and the upper bound of the range. For example, the range should be amended to read “5 nm to 15 nm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “the alkali metal vanadium oxide includes at least one selected from LiV3O8, NaV3O8 and K2V3O8” which appears to be improper alternative limitation claiming (see MPEP 2173.05(h)) since it is neither in Markush form (e.g. “…group consisting of A, B, and C”) nor is it in proper alternative form (e.g. “…is A, B, or C”). This causes the scope of the claim to be unclear as to whether the last species is supposed to be a composite of NaV3O8/K2V3O8, or if all of the listed species are individually in the alternative. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been taken as “the alkali metal vanadium oxide includes at least one selected from LiV3O8, NaV3O8, and K2V3O8”.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “the vanadium oxide includes at least one selected from VO2(B), V2O3 and V2O5” which appears to be improper alternative limitation claiming (see MPEP 2173.05(h)) since it is neither in Markush form (e.g. “…group consisting of A, B, and C”) nor is it in proper alternative form (e.g. “…is A, B, or C”). This causes the scope of the claim to be unclear as to whether the last species is supposed to be a composite of V2O3/V2O5, or if all of the listed species are individually in the alternative. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been taken as “the vanadium oxide includes at least one selected from VO2(B), V2O3, and V2O5”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 20, the phrase "may have" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the limitation following the phrase will not be considered required to meet the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heller et al. (US 2007/0125644 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Heller discloses an anode (Zn anode) for zinc metal battery (case-less miniature Zn(NAFION)—AgCl battery) comprising: a zinc metal film (Zn layer) containing zinc metal; and a protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) formed on the surface of the zinc metal film (Zn layer) (Figure 9, [0048-0049, 0087]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2, Heller does not explicitly disclose that PO-, HPO-, ZnPO- and ZnHPO- peaks are detected from the protective layer in ToF-SIMS analysis. However, Heller does disclose that the zinc metal film (Zn layer) comprises pure zinc [0048, 0071]. Heller further discloses that the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) comprises hopeite [0048]. Heller further discloses that the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) is formed on the surface of the zinc metal film (Zn layer) via an aqueous solution which may contain phosphoric acid [0054-0055].
The instant specification teaches that from ToF-SIMS analysis PO-, HPO-, ZnPO- and ZnHPO- peaks are detected from the protective layer, and wherein the protective layer may include zinc phosphate, specifically hopeite [0057-0058]. The instant specification further teaches that Preparation Example 1 involves a zinc metal film on which a zinc phosphate protective layer is formed using an aqueous solution of phosphoric acid, wherein the surface of the zinc metal film reacts with the phosphoric acid [0090, 00103-00105].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the zinc metal film (Zn layer), the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer), and the method of applying the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) taught by Heller is substantially the same as what is taught by the instant application. Therefore, the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) of Heller would be expected by the skilled artisan to have PO-, HPO-, ZnPO- and ZnHPO- peaks when subjected to ToF-SIMS analysis. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Heller further discloses the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) includes zinc phosphate (hopeite) (Figure 8, [0048, 0086]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Heller does not explicitly disclose the crystal structure or space group of the protective layer. However, Heller discloses that the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) comprises hopeite [0048].
The instant specification discloses that hopeite has an orthorhombic structure as a crystal structure and Pnma as a space group [0057].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as Heller discloses that the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) comprises hopeite, the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) of Heller would indeed have an orthorhombic structure as a crystal structure and Pnma as a space group. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. (US 2007/0125644 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above.
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Heller discloses the anode for a zinc metal battery according to Claim 1 as set forth above. Heller further discloses that the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) comprises a polymer coating which may have a thickness of greater than 10 nm and less than 500 µm [0048, 0068-0069]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I).
The examiner notes that the term “a thickness” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Claims 11-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. (US 2007/0125644 A1) further in view of Furutani et al. (US 2020/0373527 A1).
In Regards to Claim 11:
Heller discloses a zinc metal battery (case-less miniature Zn(NAFION)—AgCl battery) comprising: an anode (Zn anode) including a zinc metal film (Zn layer) containing zinc metal and a protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) formed on the surface of the zinc metal film (Zn layer) (Figure 9, [0048-0049, 0087]). Heller further discloses that the zinc metal battery (case-less miniature Zn(NAFION)—AgCl battery) comprises a cathode (Ag/AgCl cathode) containing a cathode active material, and an aqueous electrolyte disposed between the anode (Zn anode) and the cathode (Ag/AgCl cathode) (Figure 9, [0087, 0065]). Heller further discloses that the aqueous electrolyte may be selected from a group which includes interstitial fluid and environmentally friendly aqueous solutions such as sodium chloride (NaCl) and potassium chloride (KCl) [0065].
Furutani discloses a battery comprising a zinc-based negative electrode (30), a positive electrode (20), a separator (40), and an aqueous electrolyte solution (Figure 2, [0053, 0070, 0102]). Furutani further discloses that the aqueous electrolyte solution may include one or more selected from a group which includes sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium chloride (KCl), and zinc chloride (ZnCl2) [0103].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the electrolyte of Heller, an aqueous electrolyte solution comprising zinc chloride (ZnCl2), as it is known in the art at that zinc chloride (ZnCl2) is a recognized equivalent to sodium chloride (NaCl) and potassium chloride (KCl) for use as a salt in an aqueous electrolyte solution of a battery with a zinc-based negative electrode, as taught by Furutani. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
In Regards to Claim 12 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Heller as modified by Furutani discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 11 as set forth above. Heller further discloses the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) includes zinc phosphate (hopeite) (Figure 8, [0048, 0086]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
In Regards to Claim 13 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Heller as modified by Furutani discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 11 as set forth above. Heller does not explicitly disclose the crystal structure or space group of the protective layer. However, Heller discloses that the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) comprises hopeite [0048].
The instant specification discloses that hopeite has an orthorhombic structure as a crystal structure and Pnma as a space group [0057].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as Heller discloses that the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) comprises hopeite, the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) of Heller would indeed have an orthorhombic structure as a crystal structure and Pnma as a space group. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 13 are met.
In Regards to Claim 14 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Heller as modified by Furutani discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 11 as set forth above. Heller further discloses that the protective layer (phosphorus containing polymer coating and hopeite layer) comprises a polymer coating which may have a thickness of greater than 10 nm and less than 500 µm [0048, 0068-0069]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I).
The examiner notes that the term “a thickness” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 14 are met.
In Regards to Claim 19 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Heller as modified by Furutani discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 11 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 11, modified Heller discloses that the zinc salt is ZnCl2. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 19 are met.
In Regards to Claim 20 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Heller as modified by Furutani discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 11 as set forth above. Heller further discloses that the aqueous electrolyte has a pH of between 3 and 12 [0124]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 20 are met.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. (US 2007/0125644 A1) as modified by Furutani et al. (US 2020/0373527 A1), as applied to Claim 11 above, further in view of Roumi (US 2013/0224632 A1).
In Regards to Claim 15 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Heller as modified by Furutani discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 11 as set forth above. Heller discloses that the cathode active material may be silver (Ag) [0058].
Heller is deficient in disclosing that the cathode active material includes alkali metal vanadium oxide or vanadium oxide.
Roumi discloses a zinc battery comprising a cathode (positive electrode) and an anode (negative electrode), wherein the anode (negative electrode) may comprise zinc [0048-0049, 0059]. Roumi further discloses that the cathode (positive electrode) may comprise a cathode active material (positive electrode active material) which may be selected from a group which includes silver (Ag), vanadium oxide (V2O5), and an alkali metal vanadium oxide such as lithium vanadium oxide [0078].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the cathode active material of the zinc metal battery of Heller, vanadium oxide (V2O5) or an alkali metal vanadium oxide such as lithium vanadium oxide, as it is known in the art that vanadium oxide (V2O5) and lithium vanadium oxide are recognized equivalents to silver (Ag) for use as a cathode active material in a zinc based battery, as taught by Roumi. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 15 are met.
In Regards to Claim 18 (Dependent Upon Claim 15):
Heller as modified by Furutani and Roumi discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 15 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 15, modified Heller discloses that the vanadium oxide is V2O5. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 18 are met.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller et al. (US 2007/0125644 A1) as modified by Furutani et al. (US 2020/0373527 A1) and Roumi (US 2013/0224632 A1), as applied to Claim 15 above, further in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0067075 A1).
In Regards to Claim 16 (Dependent Upon Claim 15):
Heller as modified by Furutani discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 15 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 15, modified Heller discloses that the alkali metal vanadium oxide may be lithium vanadium oxide.
Modified Heller is deficient in disclosing the specific chemical formula of the lithium vanadium oxide.
Choi discloses a zinc based battery comprising a cathode (positive electrode) including a cathode active material (positive electrode material) [0060, 0061]. Choi further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode material) may be lithium vanadium oxide which has a chemical formula LiV3O8 [0061].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the lithium vanadium oxide of modified Heller, LiV3O8, as such a lithium vanadium oxide is known in the art as suitable for use as a cathode active material in a zinc based battery, as taught by Choi. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Upon the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the alkali metal vanadium oxide has a formula according to MxV3O8 wherein M is Li, and x=1. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 16 are met.
In Regards to Claim 17 (Dependent Upon Claim 15):
Heller as modified by Furutani discloses the zinc metal battery according to Claim 15 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 15, modified Heller discloses that the alkali metal vanadium oxide may be lithium vanadium oxide.
Modified Heller is deficient in disclosing the specific chemical formula of the lithium vanadium oxide.
Choi discloses a zinc based battery comprising a cathode (positive electrode) including a cathode active material (positive electrode material) [0060, 0061]. Choi further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode material) may be lithium vanadium oxide which has a chemical formula LiV3O8 [0061].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the lithium vanadium oxide of modified Heller, LiV3O8, as such a lithium vanadium oxide is known in the art as suitable for use as a cathode active material in a zinc based battery, as taught by Choi. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 17 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724