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 Species A1 in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged.
New claims 11-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/28/2026.
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.
Claim 2, 4, and 6 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, the claim limitation “sheet-like zinc alloy material” (line 2-3) renders the claim indefinite. Absent of a special definition provided in the instant specification, it is unclear what is considered sheet-like opposed to what is not sheet-like.
Regarding claim 6, the term “specifically” (line 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “specifically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear the difference in scope between “specifically adjusted” and “adjusted”.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (CN 111926313 A) in view of Huang et al. (CN 111600025 A), and Li et al. (CN 115000531 A).
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses a surface-modified (i.e. displacement reaction to modify surface, [11]) zinc-based negative electrode (i.e. zinc anode, [21]), comprising: a matrix (i.e. composite material of metal zinc foil and zinc-philic crystal nucleus, [1]), wherein the matrix comprises a zinc matrix material (i.e. metal zinc foil, [18]) and an inorganic metal modified layer (i.e. zinc-philic nucleus replaces metal crystal nucleus on surface of metal zinc foil, [18];[35-36]).
Feng further discloses the thickness of the crystal nucleus covering the surface of the zinc foil is thin so it can effectively avoid negative impacts of modification on the zinc anode material, ([18]) but does not disclose the inorganic metal modified layer to be nano.
Li teaches a similar surface-modified zinc-based negative electrode (i.e. zinc foil with surface coating, [30]) wherein the surface coating is 100 nm to 20 µm which helps solve problems with dendrites, corrosion, and hydrogen evolution of the zinc anode ([30]). Absent of a special definition provided in the instant speciation, “nano” is interpreted broadly and reasonably to be anything within the nano scale of 1 nm to 999 nm. Thus, Li’s taught range of 100 nm to 20 µm overlaps with the nano scale range of 1 nm to 999 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with reasonable expectation of arriving at a surface coating that helps solve problems with dendrites, corrosion, and hydrogen evolution of the zinc anode, thus reading on the claimed “a nano inorganic metal modified layer and a nano alloy modified layer”.
Feng is silent regarding the surface-modified composite zinc-based negative electrode comprising an organic polymer protective layer disposed outside the matrix.
Huang teaches a similar zinc-based electrode (i.e. zinc anode, [8];[11]). Huang further teaches an elastic protective layer which can prevent direct contact between the zinc negative electrode and the electrolyte, relieve the chemical and electrochemical corrosion of the zinc negative electrode, prevent generation of zinc dendrites during electrodeposition, as well as regulate electrodeposition of zinc ions ([8]). Huang further teaches the elastic protective layer includes a polymer ([10];[13]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the surface-modified zinc-based negative electrode of Feng with a polymer elastic protective layer for the benefits of preventing direct contact between the zinc anode and electrolyte, prevent dendrite generation, as well as regulate electrodeposition of zinc ions, as taught by Huang.
Regarding claim 2, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Feng discloses wherein the zinc anode material (i.e. zinc matrix material) is a metal zinc foil ([18]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “wherein the one of the nano inorganic metal modified layer and the nano alloy modified layer is formed on the zinc matrix material in situ by placing the zinc matrix material in an aqueous reaction solution containing an inorganic salt and a buffer through a chemical displacement reaction” of claim 3 is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113).
The implied structure is simply the surface modified composite zinc-based electrode of claim 1 wherein the one of the nano inorganic metal modified layer and the nano alloy modified layer is on the zinc matrix material, which modified Feng discloses as set forth above.
The implied structure of the one of the nano inorganic metal modified layer and nano alloy modified layer further comprises at least a cation of an inorganic salt, due to the chemical displacement reaction (see instant specification, [0007]). The instant specification lacks mention of the buffer being present in any shape or form in the claimed surface-modified composite zinc-based electrode. Furthermore, formation of the layer requires multiple cleanings with deionized water such that a skilled artisan would believe the buffer is not present in the implied structure (see instant specification, [0014]).
Modified Feng discloses the nano inorganic metal modified layer can be formed where in-situ chemical deposition is used to deposit on the metal zinc foil (Feng, [18];[40]). Modified Feng further discloses the in-situ chemical deposition can be done in a metal salt solution (Feng, [4]) including a metal salt such as antimony chloride, indium salt, tin tetrachloride, tin fluoride, indium chloride, and indium sulfate (Feng, [41-44]; [47]), thus satisfying the implied structure of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “the matrix is prepared by: soaking the zinc matrix material in a form of the zinc foil in the aqueous reaction solution, taking out the zinc matrix material after one of an inorganic metal layer and an inorganic alloy layer is generated on a surface of the zinc matrix material in situ, washing the zinc matrix material with the one of the inorganic metal layer and the inorganic alloy layer by using deionized water for a plurality of times, and drying the washed zinc matrix material with the one of the inorganic metal layer and the inorganic alloy layer, so as to obtain the matrix” of claim 4 is a product-by-process limitations (MPEP 2113).
The implied structure is simply the surface modified composite zinc-based electrode of claim 3, wherein the zinc matrix material is one of a zinc foil and a sheet-like zinc alloy material.
Modified Feng discloses wherein the zinc anode material (i.e. zinc matrix material) is a metal zinc foil ([18]), thus satisfying claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “wherein the inorganic salt in the aqueous reaction solution is at least one of indium chloride, indium nitrate, indium sulfate, antimony chloride, antimonic fluoride, tin chloride, tin fluoride, lead nitrate, lead acetate, and lead chloride, with a concentration in a range of 1 gram per liter (g/L) to 50 g/L” of claim 5 further limits a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). The implied structure is simply the surface-modified composite zinc based negative electrode of claim 3, wherein one of the nano inorganic metal modified layer and nano alloy modified layer includes a cation from at least one of the claimed inorganic salts (i.e. indium, antimony, tin, or lead) per the chemical displacement reaction (see instant specification, [0007])
Modified Feng discloses the nano inorganic metal modified layer can be formed where in-situ chemical deposition is used to deposit on the metal zinc foil (Feng, [18];[40]). Modified Feng further discloses the in-situ chemical deposition can be done in a metal salt solution (Feng, [4]) including a metal salt such as antimony chloride, indium salt, tin tetrachloride, tin fluoride, indium chloride, and indium sulfate (Feng, [41-44]; [47]), thus satisfying the implied structure of claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have selected from the finite list of metal salts provided by Feng as the inorganic salt in the aqueous reaction solution, with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory nano organic metal modified layer.
Regarding claim 6, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “wherein the buffer in the aqueous reaction solution is at least one of thiourea, sodium citrate, citric acid, and boric acid, and a concentration of the buffer is 0.1-3 times a concentration of the inorganic salt, reaction time is in a range of 1 second to 1 hour, and the reaction time is specifically adjusted according to a concentration of the aqueous reaction solution” of claim 6 further limits a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113).
The implied structure is simply the surface-modified composite zinc based negative electrode of claim 3, as the instant specification lacks mention of the buffer being present in any shape or form in the final surface-modified composite zinc-based electrode. Furthermore, formation of the layer requires multiple cleanings with deionized water such that a skilled artisan would believe the buffer is not present in the implied structure (see instant specification, [0014]).
Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “wherein the organic polymer protective layer is obtained by drying the matrix coated with a polymer modified layer paste, the polymer modified layer paste is a mixture of a respective modified layer paste are: 1-95 wt % polymer powder, 0-20 wt % binder, 0-20 wt % functional electrolyte salt, and 0-5 wt % functional filler, a remaining amount is the solvent, and a total proportion of the respective components and the solvent is 100%” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113).
The implied structure is simply the surface-modified composite zinc-based negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the organic polymer protective layer comprises at minimum a polymer. The binder, functional electrolyte salt, and functional filler may each be 0% when preparing the layer, and the solvent is removed after forming the layer (see instant specifications ([0039]). Thus, the binder, functional electrolyte salt, functional filler, and solvent are not required by the implied structure of the claimed product.
Modified Feng discloses the elastic protective layer including a polymer (i.e. high molecular polymer substrate, Huang, [10];[13]), thus satisfying claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation, “wherein mixing time of the polymer modified layer paste is in a range of 0.1-12 hours, and reaction temperature is in a range of 25-100 Celsius degree (°C); a coating method of the polymer modified layer paste comprises a doctor blade method, a spin coating method, a spray drying method and a dipping method” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113).
The implied structure is simply the surface zinc-based negative electrode according to claim 7, and further includes wherein the thickness of the organic polymer protective layer is in a range of 2 nm to 200 µm.
Modified Feng further discloses the thickness of the elastic layer is not greater than 50 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 nm to 200 µm of claim 8, as this can ensure the realization of its function, such as preventing chemical and electrochemical corrosion and zinc dendrite generation (Huang, [8];[15]), without excessive loss of energy density of the battery (Huang, [15]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with reasonable expectation of success in achieving an organic polymer layer capable of preventing chemical and electrochemical corrosion and zinc dendrite generation.
Regarding claim 9, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
The limitation, “wherein the wherein the solvent in the polymer modified layer paste is at least one or a mixture of deionized water, acetonitrile, and N-methylpyrrolidone; the polymer powder is at least one of polyacrylamide, polypyrrole, polyvinylidene fluoride, and 2-methylimidazole zinc salts; the binder is at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, carboxymethyl cellulose, styrene butadiene rubber, polyvinyl alcohol, and polyvinyl butyral; the functional electrolyte salt is at least one of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium trifluoromethane sulfonate (LiTfO), zinc sulfate (ZnSO4), zinc bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Zn(TFSI)2), zinc trifluoromethylsulfonate (Zn(TfO)2), sodium(I) Bis(trifluoromethane sulfonyl)imide (NaTFSI), sodium (I) bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (NaFSI), and sodium trifluoromethylsulfonate (NaTfO); and the functional filler is at least one of alumina, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxide, and zirconia” further limits a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113).
The implied structure is the surface modified composite zinc-based negative electrode according to claim 7, wherein the polymer of the organic polymer protective layer is at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, carboxymethyl cellulose, styrene butadiene rubber, polyvinyl alcohol, and polyvinyl butyral. The binder, functional electrolyte salt, and function filler are not required by the final product as they can be 0% during preparation (see instant specifications, [0009]), and the solvent is removed after forming the layer (see instant specifications ([0039]). Thus, only the polymer is required by the implied structure of the claimed product.
Modified Feng further discloses the high molecular polymer substrate is selected from any one of PVDF, PVDF-HFP, PAA, PEI, CMC, or PVC substrate, etc. (Huang, [13]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride) or PAA (polyacrylamide) from the finite list of polymers provided by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a successful organic polymer protective layer.
Regarding claim 10, modified Feng discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Feng further discloses an aqueous zinc-based battery ([37]) wherein the surface modified composite zinc-based negative electrode is used as the negative electrode material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights