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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 5/8/26. Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous prior art rejections of record have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claims 1-5 and 12-27 are pending. New claims 21-27 are withdrawn. This Action is Non-FINAL.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Newly submitted claim 21 recites a cycled anode comprising an InxMyZnz alloy comprising a porous surface portion comprising a plurality of pores, the porous surface portion having an indium concentration greater than x and a zinc concentration less than z. Examiner notes the originally claimed invention recited an InxMyZnz alloy comprising indium domains and zinc domains distributed throughout and an exposed upper surface having a zinc concentration ≥ z. See at least claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5 and 12-20 are 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 1 recites “an anode comprising an InxMyZnz alloy”. The claim further recites “the InxMyZnz alloy comprises indium domains and zinc domains distributed throughout”. The claim further recites “an exposed upper surface having a zinc concentration ≥ z”. At least claim 1 does not clearly recite the structure of the claimed anode. Specifically, how the InxMyZnz alloy has indium domains and zinc domains distributed throughout while an exposed upper surface has a zinc concentration ≥ z. Furthermore, if z of the alloy ranges from 0.83 to .97, it is unclear how the exposed upper surface of the alloy has a zinc concentration ≥ z. Claim 1 recites an InxMyZnz alloy wherein “z ranges from 0.83 to 0.97” and then further recites an exposed upper surface having “a zinc concentration ≥ z”, which is indefinite. The range of “z” is not distinctly claimed.
Claim 5 encompasses an anode comprising an InxMyZnz alloy wherein “x ranges from 0.03 to 0.20” and then further encompasses a concentration of indium in a lower region of the alloy that is proximal to the current collector “comprises indium at a concentration that is > x”, which is indefinite. The range of “x” is not distinctly claimed as the value of x is unclear. It is unclear how the lower region contains indium in an amount greater than x when x range from 0.03 to 0.20, as recited by claim 1.
To the extent the claims are understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections above, note the following prior art rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5, 12-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saidman et al., Electrodeposition of indium and zinc on aluminum, Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 29: 245-251, 1999.
Saidman teaches zinc and indium were deposited from sulphate and chloride electrolytes onto aluminum (current collector) electrodes under potentiostatic conditions. The role of the anion, pH, cation concentration, cathodic potential and agitation were investigated. The deposit morphology and composition were studied by SEM and EDX. Potentiodynamic and galvanostatic techniques were also applied for product characterization. Once a critical amount of Zn was deposited preferred In deposition began without agitation. But under rotation or at low cathodic potentials Zn² discharge became the prevalent reaction. The results support the earlier hypothesis of the preferential adsorption of Zn ions [abstract]. The Zn content in the deposit was now about 80 wt% (Table 1). The anode is part of (section 2. Experimental details) of an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode and an aqueous electrolyte comprising indium and zinc sulfates.
Saidman explicitly discloses (section 3.3.2 Deposition with agitation; section 4. Discussion; table 1) that when the InZn alloy is electrodeposited with agitation from a sulfate electrolyte, Zn is first preferentially deposited on the current collector, and then In and Zn domains are separately deposited. This mechanism appears to be the same or similar to that disclosed in the present application. The final alloy has a content of 16wt% In and 84wt% Zn, which corresponds to In0.085Zn0.915, and since the alloy is deposited on AI it is inevitable that one atom of Al is present in the alloy. The cell is also operated in stripping mode (which is the same as discharging) (section 3.3.2 Deposition with agitation), thus creating a porous surface.
Saidman teaches the deposition of zinc and indium on aluminum presents a similar situation to that given by the active interface of an Al-Zn-In alloy. There may be a presence of accumulated In at the Al interface (introduction). The anodes were performed sulphate electrolyte (experimental details). A surface analysis showed an increase in Zn content (58%) (paragraph bridging pages 247-248).
Thus, the claims are anticipated.
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) 4 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saidman et al., Electrodeposition of indium and zinc on aluminum, Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 29: 245-251, 1999, in view of Takahashi et al., WO 2020/188900 A1, and further in view of Jiang CN 108660484 A.
See the above discussion of Saidman regarding the teaching of the zinc alloy of at least claim 1. Saidman does not explicitly teach a zinc layer having a thickness of 0.5 to 1 mm. Saidman is silent regarding the cathode material and/or the aqueous electrolyte.
However, Takahashi teaches an alkali dry cell comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator arranged between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and an alkaline electrolyte included in the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator. The negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material. The negative electrode active material containing zinc, and an additive agent, and the additive agent contains a sulfur-containing cyclic compound (abstract). Examples of the negative electrode active material include zinc and zinc alloys. The zinc alloy may contain at least one selected from the group consisting of indium, bismuth and aluminum from the viewpoint of corrosion resistance. The indium content in the zinc alloy is, for example, 0.01 to 0.1% by mass, and the bismuth content is, for example, 0.003 to 0.02% by mass. The aluminum content in the zinc alloy is, for example, 0.001 to 0.03% by mass. The proportion of elements other than zinc in the zinc alloy is preferably 0.025 to 0.08% by mass from the viewpoint of corrosion resistance [0036]. A compound containing a metal having a high hydrogen overvoltage such as indium or bismuth may be appropriately added to the negative electrode in order to improve corrosion resistance [0041]. The negative electrode is obtained by mixing, for example, zinc-containing negative electrode active material particles, the above additive (sulfur-containing cyclic compound), a gelling agent, and an electrolytic solution.
Examples of the material of the negative electrode current collector inserted into the gel-like negative electrode include metals and alloys. The negative electrode current collector preferably contains copper, and may be made of an alloy containing copper and zinc, for example, brass. The negative electrode current collector may be plated with tin plating or the like, if necessary [0041-0042]. Takahashi teaches when the alkaline battery is charged by misuse, zinc ions (Zn2+) contained in the electrolytic solution are reduced at the negative electrode, and a reaction occurs in which zinc is deposited on the surface of the negative electrode active material [0013]. The positive electrode usually contains a conductive agent and an electrolytic solution in addition to manganese dioxide, which is a positive electrode active material. Further, the positive electrode may further contain a binder, if necessary. To absorb hydrogen generated in the battery when it is charged, silver compound such as Ag, Ag2O, AgO, Ag2O3, AgNiO2 may be added to the positive electrode [0043-0051].
Jiang teaches an electrodeposition method is known in the art to manufacture zinc alloys. Jiang teaches electrochemical deposition to prepare zinc-indium alloy powder. Jiang teaches a preparation method of zinc-indium alloy powder. The method comprises mixing ZnSO4, In2(SO4)3, Na2SO4, EDTA and citric acid to prepare a solution to be deposited. Then, secondly, taking copper sheet as cathode, using high pure zinc plate (zinc layer) is anode-deposition system under the condition of constant current deposition, vacuum drying the obtained powder to obtain zinc-indium alloy powder. The zinc-indium alloy powder has a dendritic structure and uniform distribution of indium (abstract). One of skill would have known the zinc alloy of the prior art could have been prepared by an electrodeposition method wherein the alloys have the desired element ratio. Saidman teaches the zinc alloys contain indium, bismuth and aluminum.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive. The 35 USC 102 rejection in view of Takahashi has been withdrawn. The 35 USC 103 rejection over Takahashi in view of Jiang has been withdrawn. Saidman has been newly applied to reject the claimed invention under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103. Newly submitted claims 21-27 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed (see above). New claims 21-27 are withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant argues at least claims 1 and 5 are definite under 35 USC 112. Examiner disagrees and maintains the indefinite rejection of the claims. The only “zinc” recited by claim 1 is contained in the alloy and z ranges from 0.83 to 0.97. Regarding claim 5, the only “indium” recited by claim 1 is contained in the alloy and x ranges from 0.03 to 0.20. See the 35 USC 112 rejections above regarding at least claims 1 and 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights