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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Zhamu reference still applies but is now modified by a previously uncited secondary reference to meet the amended limitations.
The arguments presented on page 7 of the Remarks still apply to the modified rejection. The Applicat posits that Zhamu explicitly teaches a length of the nanowire is in the range of 1-200 micrometers which falls outsides of the claims 100-120 nm range. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant and the Office appear to be interpreting the teaching in pagraph 13 of Zhamu oppositely. It is the Office’s position that the statement “particularly when α-MnO.sub.2 is not in a nanowire form (typically <100 nm in diameter and 1-200 μm in length)” as meaning that <100 nm in diameter and 1-200 μm in length is not in nanowire form. Paragraph 65 of Zhamu further supports this interpretation by stating that “there is no limitation on the length and width, but they are preferably smaller than 10 μm and more preferably smaller than 1 μm.”
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu (US 2016/0301096 A1) in view of Hu (US 2021/0408610 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu discloses an apparatus comprising: a zinc metal anode, a separator, an aqueous electrolyte, and a cathode comprising cathode active materials (paragraph 8), wherein the cathode active materials comprise graphene oxide plates with α-MnO2 nanowires (paragraph 13) perpendicular to the plates’ surface (see Figure 1). Zhamu discloses that the graphite is flexible (paragraph 71). Nanowires are by definition 1-999 nm in length and Zhamu supports this fact by stating that lengths of 1-200 microns are not nanowires (paragraph 13). The nanowires of Zhamu either encompass the claimed length of 100-120 nm or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to size the nanowires to a nano-scaled length appropriate for the context. See MPEP 21440.4 IV A.
Zhamu discloses that the water is deionized (paragraph 131) and that the aqueous electrolyte comprises zinc sulfate (paragraph 19) but not the use of polyvinyl alcohol. Hu—in an invention for Zn-MnO2 batteries utilizing zinc sulfate electrolytes—discloses the use of polyvinyl alcohol as a gelling agent for an aqueous electrolyte (paragraph 56) to ensure that the alkaline (zinc sulfate) because it takes into consideration all the three of high ion conductivity, high hydroxide concentration, and high reversibility of the zinc electrode (paragraph 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize polyvinyl alcohol as a gelling agent in Zhamu for the advantages afforded by Hu for a zinc battery.
Regarding claim 2, Zhamu discloses single or stacked graphene (paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 3, Zhamu discloses graphene oxide (GO) having 2% to 46% by weight of oxygen, reduced graphene oxide (RGO) having 0.01% to 2% by weight of oxygen, and chemically functionalized graphene (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 4, Zhamu discloses MnO.sub.2/GO ratio from 1/20 to 20/1 (paragraph 155).
Regarding claim 6, Zhamu discloses that the zinc ion intercalation compound (α-MnO2) is physically connected or chemically bonded to these graphene sheets or platelets (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 7, Zhamu discloses that a binder is optional (paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 8, Zhamu discloses a zinc battery (paragraph 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
