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 12/8/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found entirely persuasive. Claims 1-20 are pending and remain rejected. This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 12/8/25 have been entered.
Claims Analysis
Claim 1 recites “the anode has not been previously cycled”. Any subsequent claim limitations regarding an anode in a partially or fully discharged state have been interpreted as intended use limitations. Intended use limitations have not been given patentable weight. See at least claims 6-11 that require the anode to be “in a partially or fully discharged stated after one or more cycles”.
Claim 12 recites “a polarization…when exposed to an electrolyte”, which is an intended use limitation that has not been given patentable weight. The specification defines polarization as “a change in electrode potential resulting from passage of current across an electrode-to-electrolyte interface” ([0038] of PGPub document). The claim is directed toward an anode, thus, the claim does not require “an electrode-to-electrolyte interface”.
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 1-20 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 anode comprises indium domains and zinc domains distributed throughout”. The claims further recites “an exposed upper surface of the anode has a zinc concentration ≥ z”. At least claim 1 does not clearly recite the structure of the claimed anode. Specifically, how are the indium domains and zinc domains distributed throughout? Is the zinc concentration of the exposed upper surface limiting the indium zinc alloy or is the zinc concentration limiting a separate zinc layer? The present specification teaches the anode may comprise, for example, the alloy, a zinc layer and a current collector. Examiner suggests the claim be amended to clearly recite the structure of the anode. Examiner notes the claimed “anode” is not the same element as the claimed “InxMyZnz alloy”. The anode “comprises” the alloy.
Claim 1 recites an anode comprising an wherein “z ranges from 0.83 to 0.97” and then further recites an exposed upper surface of the anode has “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 anode that is proximal to the current collector “comprises indium from the alloy at a concentration that is > x”, which is indefinite. The range of “x” is not distinctly claimed as the value of x is unclear when the lower region comprises indium “from the alloy”. It is unclear how the lower region contains indium “from the alloy”.
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 § 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) 1-3, 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., WO 2020/188900 A1.
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]. Takahashi teaches the indium content in the zinc alloy may be 0.1 % by mass, thus, Takashi teaches “x” of the presently claimed invention may be 0.047797.
At.% In = (0.1 wt.% In)/(144.82 mol/g) x 100 = 4.7797 At.% In
(0.1 wt.% In)/(114.82 mol/g) + (0.9 wt.% Zn)/65.38 mol/g)
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 does not explicitly teaches an exposed upper surface of the anode has a zinc concentration ≥ z. However, this limitation has been rejected under 35 USC 112 as indefinite. Furthermore, one of skill would have reasonably expected the upper surface of the anode comprising the zinc alloy to have an amount of zinc equal to z or about z (the amount of zinc in the zinc alloy). In addition, 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].1
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].
*
Claim(s) 4, 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., WO 2020/188900 A1 in view of Jiang CN 108660484 A.
See the above discussion of Takahashi regarding the teaching of the zinc alloy of at least claim 1. Takahashi does not teach an electrodeposition method is used to make the zinc alloy.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention because 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 Takahashi could have been prepared by an electrodeposition method wherein the alloys have the desired element ratio. Takahashi teaches the zinc alloys contain indium, bismuth and aluminum.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant argues at least claims 1 and 5 are definite under 35 USC 112. Examiner disagrees and maintains the indefinite rejection of the claims. Applicant argues the clause stating “the exposed upper surface of the anode has a zinc concentration ≥ z” refers instead to the local zinc concentration present at that specific surface region. However, this argument does not appear to be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The only “zinc” recited by claim 1 is contained in the alloy. It is unclear what structural element of the claimed anode encompasses a “local zinc concentration”. See the 35 USC 112 rejection above regarding at least claim 1. The arguments regarding the indefinite rejections of claim 6-8, 10-12, 14 and 17 are found persuasive.
All prior art rejections that relied upon Zuraw have been withdrawn. Applicant’s argument Zuraw fails to disclose that “x ranges from 0.03 to 0.20” is found persuasive.
Regarding Takahashi, Applicant argues Takahashi does not disclose or suggest the feature recited in claim 1 that “x ranges from 0.03 to 0.20” and “the anode comprises indium domains and zinc domains distributed throughout”. Applicant specifically argues Takahashi only discloses an In content of 0.01-0.1 mass%. However, Takashi teaches “x” of the presently claimed invention may be 0.047797.
At.% In = (0.1 wt.% In)/(144.82 mol/g) x 100 = 4.7797 At.% In
(0.1 wt.% In)/(114.82 mol/g) + (0.9 wt.% Zn)/65.38 mol/g)
Conclusion
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 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