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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 24, 2025, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Particularly, no copy of International Application No. PCT/US2023/024498, International Search Report and Written Opinion, mailed November 7, 2024 appears to have been provided.
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.
Claims 12-16, 20, and 21 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “separate” in claim 12 is used by the claim to mean “separator.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted to mean “separator.”
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the battery” in the preamble and “the cathode” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 15 will be held to depend from claim 12, which properly introduces both terms. The Office further advises Applicant to carefully review preliminary amendments to ensure antecedent basis issues are not created when eliminating multiple dependencies.
Claim 20 recites “a surfactant of formula (I)” in line 3 of the claim, followed by formula (II), rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, line 3 of claim 20 will be interpreted to recite “a surfactant of formula (II).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2019/0288346 A1), hereinafter “Liu.”
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an anode composition comprising:
a zinc or a zinc alloy
a surfactant, in this case the anode comprises a long-chain surfactant (¶ [0061], of formula (I) (see long-chain structure ¶ ([0052]-[0061], R1-(R2Y)n-R3).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Liu further discloses that n is 2 (see long-chain structure ¶ ([0052]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu further discloses that the surfactant of formula (I) comprises a mixture of surfactants according to formula (I), in this case the alkaline electrochemical cell comprises two or more long-chain surfactants (¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Liu further discloses that the anode composition is free of nonylphenol functional groups, in this case such groups are not listed in the possible functional groups ¶ ([0052]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 11, Liu further discloses that the surfactant according to formula (I) is provided in a range of 10 ppm to 75 ppm relative to the amount of zinc or zinc alloy in the anode composition, in this case the anode comprises the long-chain surfactant in a concentration of about 10 ppm, about 15 ppm, about 20 ppm, about 25 ppm, about 30 ppm, about 35 ppm, about 40 ppm, about 45 ppm, about 50 ppm, about 55 ppm, about 60 ppm, about 65 ppm, about 70 ppm, or about 75 ppm (¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses an alkaline battery comprising:
an anode comprising an anode composition according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above);
a cathode (¶ [0008]);
a separator between the anode and cathode (¶ [0008]); and
an alkaline electrolyte (¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Liu further discloses that the alkaline electrolyte comprises 25 wt% to 40 wt% hydroxide based on the weight of the electrolyte in the battery, in this case 26 wt% to 36 wt% of an alkaline metal hydroxide (¶ [0099]).
Regarding claim 14, Liu further discloses that the cathode comprises one or more manganese oxides, in this case manganese dioxide (¶ [0104]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu further discloses that the cathode comprises nickel oxyhydroxide or silver oxide (¶ [0104]).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses a method of making a battery comprising:
incorporating into a battery an anode including a zinc or a zinc alloy (¶ [0095]-[0096]) and a surfactant, in this case the anode comprises a long-chain surfactant (¶ [0061], of formula (I) (¶ ([0052]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 19, Liu further discloses that the surfactant according to formula (I) is provided in a range of 10 ppm to 75 ppm relative to the amount of zinc or zinc alloy in the anode composition, in this case the anode comprises the long-chain surfactant in a concentration of about 10 ppm, about 15 ppm, about 20 ppm, about 25 ppm, about 30 ppm, about 35 ppm, about 40 ppm, about 45 ppm, about 50 ppm, about 55 ppm, about 60 ppm, about 65 ppm, about 70 ppm, or about 75 ppm (¶ [0068]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 20 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art reference could be found that fairly teaches or suggests anode compositions comprising the surfactants as set forth in claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 20, and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729