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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04-16-2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0220441 hereinafter Ogg in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0036002 hereinafter Chakraborty and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0365953 hereinafter Pham . Regarding Claim s 1 , 9 and 10 , Ogg teaches a n additive for an iron electrode of an alkaline rechargeable battery (paragraphs 21, 30-32), the additive compris ing metal sulfide (paragraph 36). Ogg teaches that the metal sulfide is a powder (paragraphs 32, 40) but does not specifically disclose a powder of discrete granules including agglomerated particles . However, Chakraborty teaches a n additive for an iron electrode of an alkaline electrochemical cell (paragraph s 105, 154 ), the additive compris ing metal sulfide powder of discrete granules including agglomerated particles (paragraph 214 , see claims 74-75 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an iron electrode comprising metal sulfide powder of discrete granules including agglomerated particles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Chakraborty discloses that such process is effective and less expensive (paragraph 215). Pham teaches an additive for an iron negative electrode (paragraph 120), wherein the additive comprises metal sulfides such as ZnS (zinc sulfide) (paragraph 121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an iron negative electrode that comprises ZnS additive before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Pham discloses that such additive material s are selected for enhancing conductivity, inhibiting gas evolution, improving discharge rate capability, or other battery performance enhancing objectives (paragraph 123 ). Regarding Claim 2, the combination teaches that the at least one metal sulfide of the agglomerated particles is greater than 50 wt % of the discrete granules (paragraphs 36, 40 of Ogg) . Regarding Claims 3-4, the combination teaches that negative electrode comprises metal sulfide additive having particle size of less than 100 µm (paragraph 168 of Pham). Regarding Claims 5-8, the combination teaches that the metal sulfide additive comprises discrete granules including agglomerated particles (paragraph 214, see claims 74-75 of Chakraborty ) , and further includes a binder ( paragraphs 32, 40 of Ogg) . The discrete granules including agglomerated particles are expected to have similar properties or characteristics (see MPEP § 2112.01). Regarding Claim 11, the combination teaches that the agglomerated particles of the discrete granules have surface-connected porosity (paragraph 194 of Chakraborty ). Regarding Claim 12, Ogg teaches an iron negative electrode for an alkaline rechargeable battery , the iron negative electrode comprising: an iron oxide active material ( first powder ) ; and a metal sulfide additive ( second powder ) (paragraphs 30-32, 36), wherein the active material and the additive form a powder blend in which the additive is dispersed relative to the active material (paragraph 40). Regarding Claim 13, Ogg teaches an additive for an iron electrode of an alkaline rechargeable battery (paragraphs 21, 30-32) and a method of manufacturing the electrode, wherein the method comprises processing metal sulfide additive (paragraphs 32, 40-41). Ogg teaches that the metal sulfide is a powder (paragraphs 32, 40) but does not specifically disclose a powder of discrete granules including agglomerated particles. However, Chakraborty teaches an additive for an iron electrode of an alkaline electrochemical cell (paragraphs 105, 154), the additive comprises metal sulfide powder of discrete granules including agglomerated particles (paragraph 214, see claims 74-75). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an iron electrode comprising metal sulfide powder of discrete granules including agglomerated particles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Chakraborty discloses that such process is effective and less expensive (paragraph 215). Regarding Claim 14, the combination teaches that the processing of the material includes solid-state bonding of the particulate material ( paragraphs 32, 40 of Ogg and paragraph 214 of Chakraborty ). Regarding Claims 15-18, the combination teaches that the method comprises mixing the metal sulfide powder of discrete granules including agglomerated particles with a binder and sintering the composition together ( paragraphs 32, 40 of Ogg and paragraph 214 of Chakraborty). Regarding Claims 19-20, the combination teaches that the metal sulfide include s zinc sulfide (ZnS) and iron sulfide (FeS) (paragraph 121 of Pham). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3446 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8760 . 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. /OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752