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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 4, 6, 7, 25, 27-29, 35-37 and 39 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 25, 27, 35 – 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) by Zheng, US20210094841A1 (in IDS filed 10/31/23).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng teaches a pre-aged, desodiated nickelate material (stabilized nickelate material)[0014], said pre-aged, desodiated nickelate material having an X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern comprising:
(i) a first peak from about 11.9°-13.8° 2Θ, a second peak from about 17°-19.5° 2Θ, a third peak from about 24.7°-26.5° 2Θ, a fourth set of peaks from about 36.3°-39.2° 2Θ, a fifth set of peaks from about 41.9°-45.7° 2Θ, a sixth peak from 47.5°-49.5° 2Θ, a seventh peak from about 50.3°-52° 2Θ, an eighth peak from about 57.4°-58.7° 2Θ, and a ninth set of peaks from about 65°-68° 2Θ [fig. 2]; or
(ii) a first peak from about 11.1°-14.4° 2Θ, a second set of peaks from about 17.2°-19.9° 2Θ, a third peak from about 24.1°-26.0° 2Θ, a fourth set of peaks from about 35.8°-39.3° 2Θ, a fifth set of peaks from about 43.4°-45.4° 2Θ, a sixth peak from 47.7°-49.4° 2Θ, a seventh peak from about 56.8°-59.6° 2Θ, an eighth peak from about 62.8°-64.5° 2Θ, a ninth peak from about 65°-67.4° 2Θ, and a tenth peak from about 68.1°-69.2° 2Θ [fig. 2].
Regarding claim 6, Zheng teaches the pre-aged, desodiated nickelate material of claim 4, wherein said pre-aged, desodiated nickelate material has been prepared by pre-aging a desodiated nickelate precursor using a pre-aging solution comprising one or more agents selected from the group consisting of hydroxides (KOH)[0014].
Regarding claim 7, Zheng teaches the pre-aged, desodiated nickelate material of claim 6, wherein the pre-aging solution comprises a hydroxide selected from the group consisting of LiOH, NaOH, and other alkali and alkaline earth metal hydroxides (KOH)[0014].
Regarding claim 25, Zheng teaches an alkaline cathode composition comprising the pre-aged, desodiated nickelate material of claim 4 and electrolytic manganese dioxide [0083].
Regarding claim 27, Zheng teaches the alkaline cathode composition of claim 25, further comprising graphite and a binder [0085][0086].
Regarding claim 35, Zheng teaches the nickelate material of claim 4, wherein said nickelate material exhibits three discharge plateaus vs. Zn/ZnO reference electrode during discharge to 1.0V voltage at 10 mA/g discharge rate [0098].
Regarding claim 36, Zheng teaches the nickelate material of claim 35, wherein said nickelate material exhibits a discharge plateau at about 1.85-1.80 V during discharge at 10 mA/g discharge rate [fig. 3].
Regarding claim 37, Zheng teaches the nickelate material of claim 35, wherein said nickelate material exhibits a discharge curve vs. Zn/ZnO at 10 mA/g discharge rate, wherein the discharge curve depicts voltage vs. specific capacity; wherein the specific capacity is separated into a first region, from OCV to 1.63 V; a second region, from 1.63 V to 1.45 V; and a third region, from 1.45 V to 1.00 V; wherein the capacity contribution of a given region is the difference between the capacity at the end of that region and the beginning of that region; and i) the ratio of the capacity contribution of the second region to the capacity contribution of the first region is less than 10; o ii) the capacity contribution of the first region is at least 7.0% relative to the total capacity contribution of the first, second, and third regions [fig. 3].
Regarding claim 39, Zheng teaches the alkaline electrochemical cell comprising a nickelate material of claim 4 [0001].
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 28 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, US20210094841A1 (in IDS filed 10/31/23).
Regarding claim 28, Zheng teaches the composition of claim 27, wherein the pre-aged, desodiated nickelate material is present in an amount of about 8.8-45.1 wt. %, the electrolytic manganese dioxide is present in an amount of about 48-84.3 wt. %, the graphite is present in an amount of about 3-8 wt. %, and the binder is present in an amount of about 0.1-1.0 wt. % [0082][0083][0097]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 29, Zheng teaches the composition of claim 27, wherein the pre-aged, desodiated nickelate material and EMD, together, are present in an amount of about 92-97 wt. %, the graphite is present in an amount of about 3-8 wt. %, and the binder is present in an amount of about 0.1-1.0 wt. % [0082][0083][0097]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights