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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 11 and 16 have been amended; support for claims 1, 11, and 16 are found on pages 9-10 of the instant application.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2018/0316064 A1) in view of Wang (CN 113937341 A) and Archer et al. (US 2022/0149378 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a zinc rechargeable battery, comprising
a positive electrode (Figure 1; [0034] cathode material 2 and cathode current collector 1 are collectively the cathode),
a zinc-containing negative electrode (Figure 1; [0035] zinc anode),
a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0067] separator 3 between the anode and cathode, Figure 1), and
an electrolyte ([0067] electrolyte),
wherein the zinc rechargeable battery includes an additive ([0064] additives are added and can be added to the electrolyte or electrode or combination of both),
wherein the electrolyte is an aqueous electrolyte or a mixture of aqueous and organic electrolytes ([0055] aqueous electrolyte).
Wei discloses the use of additives that can be organic additive and inorganic additives provided to increase the lifetime of the rechargeable zinc anode batteries ([0032]) and lists examples of additives in [0058-0063], however, is silent with respect to the additive having a donor number of about 32 or more as it is unclear the donor number of the additives used by Wei.
Wang discloses an electrode material for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Wang discloses an aqueous zinc ion battery is provided and discloses wherein an electrolyte can contains an additive such as hexamethylphosphoramide as an electrolyte flame retardant additive ([14-17]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the additive of Wei for the electrolyte additive of Wang, specifically the hexamethylphosphoramide as a simple substitution of one electrolyte additive for another in order to provide flame retardancy properties to the electrolyte. The resulting modification would read on the claim limitations of a donor number of 32 or more as hexamethylphosphoramide has a donor number of about 38. The hexamethylphosphoramide additive can be substituted for at least one of the plurality of additives taught by Wei as a simple substitution of battery additives with reasonable expectation of success as the additive of Wang and Wei can both be used in an aqueous electrolyte. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Additionally, modified Wei is silent with respect to wherein zinc is electrodeposited in a hexagonal column shape on the surface of the negative electrode.
Archer discloses conductive coatings for anodes and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Archer discloses wherein metal ions such as a zinc metal can be electrodeposited onto the anode having a hexagonal closest packed structure ([0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the depositing of zinc onto the electrode such that the zinc is electrodeposited in a hexagonal shape as taught by Archer. Archer’s hexagonal shape is known in the art and thus it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to provide a hexagonal shape for the zinc of the anode in view of the combination of Wei, Archer and Wang.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wei further discloses wherein the additive is present on the surface of the negative electrode and/or in the electrolyte ([0064] additives can be added into the electrolyte, the electrodes or combination of both).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the compound having a donor number of about 32 or more includes an element containing an unshared electrode pair and a hydrophobic functional group (Wang; [14-17] see modification of claim 1 as the hexamethylphosphoramide additive has a donor number of about 38, unshared electron pair on the oxygen and has methyl groups that are hydrophobic functional groups).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 3. Wang discloses the wherein the element containing an unshared electron pair is N, O, P, or S (Wang [14-17] hexamethylphosphoramide), and
The hydrophobic functional group is substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms (Wang [14-17] methyl groups that are hydrophobic that read an at least a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the compound having a donor number of about 32 or more is a substituted or unsubstituted phosphoramide (Wang [[14-17] hexamethylphosphoramide).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the compound having a donor number of about 32 or more is at least one of the compounds represented by chemical formulas 1 to 3 (Wang [14-17] Hexamethylphosphoramide reads as the chemical formula 3 wherein X is O, Z1 is NR31R32, Z2 is NR34R35, Z3 is NR37R38 and wherein R31-R39 can be an amine group, see modification of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the compound having a donor number of about 32 or more is an alkyl substituted phosphoramide (Wang [14-17] hexamethylphosphoramide).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the compound having a donor number of about 32 or more has a donor number of about 37 or more (Wang [14-17] hexamethylphosphoramide has a donor number of 38).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wei further discloses wherein the electrolyte is an aqueous solvent ([0055] electrolyte can be an aqueous electrolyte and aqueous solution see claim 6). Examiner notes that the limitation directed to the organic electrolyte is considered an optional limitation as the independent claim 1 and corresponding rejection only selected the electrolyte being an aqueous electrolyte and thus the limitation of the organic electrolyte is an optional limitation.
Regarding claim 14, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wei further discloses the positive electrode includes an inorganic positive electrode active material, an organic positive electrode active material or a combination thereof ([0038] discloses an inorganic active material for the cathode such as nickel oxyhydroxide, manganese dioxide, or silver oxide). Examiner notes the breadth of the claim as the active material must be organic, inorganic or a combination thereof and thus the active material is rendered obvious if present in the battery.
Regarding claim 15, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Wei further discloses wherein the inorganic positive electrode active material includes a metal oxide, and the metal is at least one selected from Co, Ni, Mn, V, and Zn ([0038] cathode materials can be nickel oxyhydroxide or manganese dioxide that read on the claimed inorganic metal oxide comprising Ni or Mn).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wei further discloses wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material including zinc metal, a zinc alloy or a combination thereof ([0047] anode material comprises zinc and reads as the zinc metal). Examiner notes that the further limitations of a zinc alloy are considered option limitations as a zinc metal was chosen for the active material and thus a zinc alloy is optional as a zinc metal satisfies the claim as written.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2018/0316064 A1) in view of Wang (CN 113937341 A) and Archer et al. (US 2022/0149378 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0045322 A1- hereinafter Wang’322).
Regarding claim 9-10, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Wei is silent with respect to the amount of the additive is included in the electrolyte.
Wang’322 discloses an electrode material for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Wang discloses wherein an additive such as pyridine as well as other materials can be added to a battery such as the electrolyte to improve lifetime characteristics of the battery, suppress the reduction in battery capacity, and improve discharge capacity of the battery ([0094]). Wang’322 further discloses wherein the additive can be included in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight of the total electrolyte ([0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the amount of additive that is provided in the total electrolyte to an amount of 0.1-5 parts by weight as taught by Wang’322 in order to improve the lifetime characteristics of the battery. While Wang’322 discloses the additive is provided in a parts by weight rather than a volume percentage of 0.1-20 volume%, it is deemed that the parts by weight would significantly overlap and be expected to have similar ranges to the volume percentage given the overlapping material and ranges disclosed absent evidentiary data. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2018/0316064 A1) in view of Wang (CN 113937341 A) and Archer et al. (US 2022/0149378 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2023/0039527 A1-having priority dates of 1/20/2021).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wei is silent with respect to wherein the electrolyte comprises a zinc salt at a concentration of 0.1-30 m.
Zhu discloses a cathode and electrolyte for a zinc ion battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Zhu discloses wherein the zinc ion battery has an aqueous electrolytes that includes a 0.25-0.75 m zinc salt and sodium perchlorate for stability and reversibility of zinc anodes in an electrolyte ([0026-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the electrolyte of Wei for the electrolyte taught by Zhu having a zinc salt with a molality of 0.25-0.75 m as a simple substitution of one aqueous electrolyte for another. The resulting modification would render obvious the claimed range of the zinc salt between 0.1-30 m. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wei discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Wei is silent with respect to wherein the electrolyte includes a zinc salt such as ZnSO4, Zn(NO3)2, or ZnCl2.
Zhu discloses a cathode and electrolyte for a zinc ion battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Zhu discloses wherein the zinc ion battery has an aqueous electrolytes that includes a 0.25-0.75 m zinc salt such as ZnSO4, Zn(NO3)2, or ZnCl2 and sodium perchlorate for stability and reversibility of zinc anodes in an electrolyte ([0026-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the electrolyte of Wei for the electrolyte taught by Zhu having a zinc salt containing ZnSO4, Zn(NO3)2, or ZnCl2 as a simple substitution of one aqueous electrolyte for another. The resulting modification would render obvious the claimed material of the zinc salt .The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record and argues (1) there is lack of motivation to combine Wei with Wang as Wang discloses a non-aqueous organic lithium battery, (2) difference in purpose of the claimed zinc battery and the prior art Wang, (3) impermissible hindsight is used to combine pyridine from Wang, (4) Hexagonal column shape electrodeposition is not taught by the prior art
Examiner notes that the rejection has been updated taking into account the amendments to the claims. Regarding argument (1), the rejection has been updated replacing Wang with an aqueous electrolyte battery. Examiner further notes that Wang used in the previous office action is used in the updated rejection to disclose modifying an amount of an additive that can be used in an electrolyte solution and thus would broadly read on the claimed invention and would be considered analogous art as the updated rejection simply uses Wang to adjust an amount of additive can be provided in the electrolyte. Regarding argument (2), Wang has been replaced in the updated rejection. Examiner further notes that the prior art can have different rationale to combine than that of the instant invention and thus this argument is not persuasive. Regarding argument (3), the rejection has been updated replacing Wang as the secondary reference in the independent claim. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Regarding argument (4), the rejection has been updated rendering the argument moot as applicant argues amended claim limitations that were not previously considered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Affinito et al. (US 2007/0224502 A1)-discloses an electrode protection in aqueous and non-aqueous electrochemical cells and discloses wherein additives can be included such as pyridine to achieve a desired pH for the electrolyte.
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 Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights