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 2, 5, and 7 have been cancelled and claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 includes an amended limitation which states “the electrolyte initially contains zincate ions.” While the applicant has sufficient support for an electrolyte which may contain zincates (pg. 10), the only mention of an electrolyte initially containing zincate ions is discussed in Example 1, detailing zincate ions present initially in the electrolyte due to the presence of zinc oxide added to the electrolyte. However, example 1 is labeled by the applicant as prior art, and therefore, does not support the initial inclusion of zincate ions.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (U.S. 20220006078) in view of Kaye et al. (U.S. 20200083507).
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Yadav discloses A zinc-manganese hybrid secondary electrochemical generator (zinc-manganese dioxide battery/MnO.sub.2|Zn battery) ([0022]), comprising:
a) a positive hybrid electrode (cathode) containing a mixture of manganese dioxide (MnO2) ([0026]; [0027]) and nickel hydroxide (Ni(OH)2) (as an additive or dopant to an MnO.sub.2|Zn battery; [0029])), and
b) an electrolyte that is an alkaline aqueous solution using a KOH salt in water solution , thus reading on claim 6 ([0079];([0083]);
wherein:
a mass ratio of: Ni(OH)2 is from 0-30 wt. % ([0034]), thus overlapping the claimed range of a mass of Ni(OH)2 is from 25% to 50% of a sum of a mass of Ni(OH)2 and MnO2 when Ni(OH)2 is the added dopant to the MnO.sub.2|Zn battery, and
the electrolyte initially contains zincate ions ([0064]: in the form of zinc oxide dissolved in the electrolyte (anolyte), which is how the zincate ions are present initially in the instant application [Example 1].
Yadav does not disclose a molarity of the electrolyte is from 10 M to 13 M of hydroxyl anions.
Kaye discloses a zinc-manganese alkaline battery ([0041]) with zinc as the anode material and manganese dioxide as a cathode material ([0053]) and teaches the electrolyte is 5 M to 10 M KOH ([0053]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 10 M to 13 M. Kaye further teaches this electrolyte satisfies the need for alkaline characteristics ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the KOH electrolyte disclosed by Yadav was in the range taught by Kaye to satisfy the need for alkaline characteristics.
Applicant is reminded that 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. in view of Kaye et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bugnet et al. (U.S. 20050121655).
With respects to claims 3-4, modified Yadav disclose a negative zinc electrode (Table 1, Example 3), but does not disclose the electrode further contains a conductive ceramic or titanium nitride.
Bugnet discloses a zinc anode for an alkaline secondary electrochemical generator (abstract]) and teaches adding titanium nitride (claim 4) as a ceramic (claim 3) powder to the anode ([abstract]). Bugnet further teaches that the titanium nitride is used as electronic conduction in the anode active mass and as zincates retention which are produced by generator discharge ([abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to add titanium nitride as taught by Bugnet to the zinc anode disclosed by modified Yadav in order to use the titanium nitride as electronic conduction in the anode active mass and as zincates retention which are produced by generator discharge.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. in view of Kaye et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smedley et al. (U.S. 20040053132).
With respect to claim 8, modified Yadav discloses an alkaline aqueous electrolytic solution containing potassium hydroxide and zincate ions (see above rejection of claims 1 and 7), but does not disclose the electrolyte further contains borate, silicates, and/or aluminates.
Smedley discloses an electrolyte solution containing potassium hydroxide (KOH) and zinc ([0017]) and teaches the electrolyte further contains sodium silicate ([0017]). Smedley further teaches that the silicate functions as a zincate stabilizer ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a silicate as taught by Smedley in the electrolyte disclosed by modified Yadav to act as a zincate stabilizer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-9 of response, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 103 using Yadav et al. in view of Kaye et al. with respects to claim 1.
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 JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
