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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Currently, claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are pending examination.
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(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are 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.
The limitation of “gradient” in line 11 in step S12 of the instant claim 1 introduces new matter. The present specification only teaches a cyclic deposition (paragraph [0042]) or, a cyclic voltammetry method (paragraph [0065]) a cyclic voltammetry deposition method (paragraph [0052]). The specification does not disclose “gradient cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition process.” Thus, the specification fails to show possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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 1-5 and 7-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "gradient" in line 11 in step S12. The term “gradient” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradient” 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.
Further, it is not clear whether the scope of the term “gradient cyclic voltammetry” is different from that of the term “cyclic voltammetry,” rendering instant claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the term “gradient cyclic voltammetry” is interpreted as “cyclic voltammetry.”
Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al., "Achieving ultrahigh energy density and long durability in a flexible rechargeable quasi‐solid‐state Zn–MnO2 battery." Advanced Materials 29.26 (2017): 1700274 (hereinafter referred to as Zeng) in view of Kwang “Jeff” Yeh of US 2011/0059333 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yeh), Zhao et al., "Facile electrodeposition of freestanding MnO2/CNT film for high-performance on-chip all-solid-state rechargeable zinc-ion microbattery." Materials Letters 292 (2021): 129614) (hereinafter referred to as Zhao), Marozzi et al, "Development of electrode morphologies of interest in electrocatalysis: Part 2: Hydrogen evolution reaction on macroporous nickel electrodes." Electrochimica acta 46.6 (2001): 861-866 (hereinafter referred to as Marozzi), Zhibo Ren of CN 114381757 A (hereinafter referred to as Ren), Clark et al, "Nanostructured manganese oxide and manganese oxide/polyethylenedioxythiophene rods electrodeposited onto nickel foam for supercapacitor applications." Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 47 (2017): 39-49 (hereinafter referred to as Clark), Su et al. "Co-electro-deposition of the MnO2–PEDOT: PSS nanostructured composite for high areal mass, flexible asymmetric supercapacitor devices." Journal of Materials Chemistry A 1.40 (2013): 12432-12440 (hereinafter referred to as Su), Changjiang Yang of CN 104120474 A (hereinafter referred to as Yang), Cowper-Coles (US0898189A), Xu et al, "Fabricating a gel electrolyte based on lignin-coated nanosilica to enhance the reversibility of zinc anodes for rechargeable aqueous Zn/MnO2 batteries." ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 10.6 (2022): 2063-2071 (hereinafter referred to as Xu), Omale et al, " High-areal capacity microbatteries from symmetrical interdigitated 3D nanowire network electrodes", 2018, (hereinafter referred to as Omale) and Rusi, and S. R. Majid. "Effects of electrodeposition mode and deposition cycle on the electrochemical performance of MnO2-NiO composite electrodes for high-energy-density supercapacitors." PloS one 11.5 (2016): e0154566 (hereinafter referred to as Rusi).
In regards to claim 1, Zeng pertains to the instant invention because Zeng relates to method of preparing a microbattery (Zeng, Fig. 1(a)-(f)).
Zeng discloses a rechargeable Zn-MnO2 battery using a MnO2@PEDOT (poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)) cathode, a Zn-coated carbon cloth anode, and a modified poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) gel electrolyte (Zeng, page 1, second para.), wherein Zeng teaches preparing each component of the microbattery using electrodeposition with a CHI 760E electrochemical workstation (Zeng, Experimental Section).
Zeng does not disclose a microelectrode made of Zn-coated carbon nanotube anode.
Yeh discloses mixing carbon nanotubes and an electrolyte, such as magnesium nitrate, in an ethanol solution (Yeh, paragraph [0031]). Yeh discloses that stable suspensions with varied concentrations of carbon nanotubes can be prepared (Yeh, paragraph [0031]). Yeh teaches that a faster and uniform diffusion and improved reaction routes may be achieved via carbon nanotubes (Yeh, paragraph [0011]), wherein the electrodes can be used for batteries.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng with the stable suspension of Yeh for preparing stable suspensions with varied concentrations of carbon nanotubes in using electrophoretic deposition (Yeh, paragraph [0011]).
For preparing a manganese dioxide/3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene polymer (S1):
Zeng in view of Yeh discloses electrodepositing at a constant voltage (at 1.0 V for 15 min; Zeng, Experimental Section, Preparation of MnO2).
Zeng in view of Yeh does not disclose a process of electrodepositing nickel sulfate mixed with ammonium sulfate to obtain a porous metal microelectrode.
Marozzi discloses preparation of macroporous nickel electrodeposits for obtaining a porous metal microelectrode, such as macroporous nickel electrodes (Marozzi, 2.1 Preparation of nickel electrodeposits). Marozzi discloses a process of electrodepositing nickel chloride with ammonium chloride. Marozzi discloses that using a macroporous nickel electrodes can be of great interest due to its capability to generate high currents per unit of external surface and also increased accessibility of electrodic surface (Marozzi, Introduction).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh with the porous metal microelectrode of Marozzi for increasing capability of generating high currents per unit of external surface with greater accessibility of electrodic surface (Marozzi, Introduction).
Zeng in view of Yeh and Marozzi does not disclose using nickel sulfate and ammonium sulfate.
Ren teaches that the source of nickel (Ren, paragraph [n0008]) may be one or more of nickel sulfate (Ren, paragraph [n0019]) and the source of ammonium (Ren, paragraph [n0008]) may be one or more of ammonium sulfate (Ren, paragraph [n0019]) in a method of forming a porous structure on the electrode surface (Ren, paragraph [n0003]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh and Marozzi with the sources of nickel and ammonium of Ren for increasing the specific surface area of electrolysis (Ren, paragraph [n0003]).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi and Ren does not disclose electrodepositing (or electropolymerizing) manganese acetate and 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene, or EDOT, on the porous metal microelectrode, such as macroporous nickel electrodes.
Clark discloses electrodepositing manganese acetate (Clark, 2.1 Mn oxide deposition) and EDOT (Clark, 2.2 PEDOT deposition) on a nickel foam. Clark discloses electropolymerization of EDOT for coating the deposits with the conductive polymer, PEDOT, with Mn oxide (Clark, Introduction, fifth para.). Clark teaches that nickel foam is inexpensive, conductive, and its porosity facilitates high degree of mass loading (Clark, Introduction, fifth para.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi and Ren with the electrodeposition of Clark for improving the mass loading and areal capacitance (Clark, Introduction, fifth para.).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, and Clark does not disclose co-electrodeposition.
Su discloses co-electrodeposition of a solution mixed with manganese oxide and EDOT (Su, Experimental procedure).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, and Clark with the co-electrodeposition of Su for preparing an electrode material with a high areal capacitance, a high areal mass, an excellent mechanic robustness, a high through-put and great convenience (Su, abstract).
For preparing a zinc-coated carbon nanotube microelectrode (S2):
Zeng in view of Yeh discloses electrodepositing at a constant voltage (at 1.0 V for 15 min; Zeng, Experimental Section, Preparation of MnO2).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, and Su discloses using electrophoresis for depositing a mixed solution of carbon nanotubes and magnesium nitrate in an ethanol (Yeh, paragraph [0031]).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, and Su does not disclose obtaining an interdigital microelectrode.
Zhao discloses obtaining an interdigitated microelectrode (Zhao, 2.2 Electrochemical measurements and preparation of OAR-ZIMBs).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, and Su with the interdigital electrode configuration of Zhao for reducing the ionic diffusion pathway and thus improve the power density of battery (Zhao, Introduction, second para.).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, and Zhao does not disclose using a platinum sheet as a cathode and a brass as an anode.
Yang discloses using a platinum sheet as a cathode (Yang, paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, and Zhao with the platinum sheet of Yang for using platinum sheet as a cathode and working electrode for electrodeposition process (Yang, paragraph [0007]).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, and Yang does not disclose using a brass as anode.
Cowper-Coles discloses using a brass as anode in electroplating (Cowper-Coles, col. 1, ln. 40). Cowper-Coles discloses that using brass anode can help control and regulate deposition of an alloy, wherein the alloy consists of copper and zinc.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao and Yang with the brass anode of Cowper-Coles for using platinum sheet as a cathode and working electrode for electrodeposition (Cowper-Coles, col. 2, ln. 76).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang and Cowper-Coles disclose to the method of mixing zinc sulfate and sodium sulfate and further using the solution for electrodepositing a metal zinc nanosheet on the surface of the working electrode to obtain the zinc-coated carbon nanotube microelectrode (Zeng, Preparation of Zn Cathode, page 1700274 (6 of 7)). Zeng teaches using a Zn nanosheet as an anode in the paper (Zeng, page 1700274 (1 of 7), second para.; page 1700274 (2 of 7), left column; page 1700274 (3 of 7), left column; page 1700274 (4 of 7), right column).
For assembling the microbattery (S3):
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang and Cowper-Coles discloses using manganese dioxide/3,4-ethylenedioxythiopene polymer microelectrode and the zinc-coated carbon cloth microelectrode as a cathode and an anode, respectively (Zeng, Fig. 1a).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang and Cowper-Coles discloses coating a surface of the assembled electrode with a PV/LiCl-ZnCl2-MnSO4 gel as electrolyte, wherein the gel was prepared by mixing 3M LiCl, 2M ZnCl2, 0.4M MnSO4, lignocellulose, and PVA in deionized water (Zeng, Fabrication of Quai-Solid State Zn-MnO2 Battery).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang and Cowper-Coles does not disclose using zinc sulfate and using xanthan gum as a gel electrolyte.
Xu teaches that using zinc sulfate, instead of zinc chloride, in a battery gel electrolyte can improve performance and stability, even though both salts can be used because using zinc sulfate can help preventing zinc dendrite growth, reducing corrosion, and potentially increasing capacity retention (Xu, abstract).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang and Cowper-Coles with the zinc sulfate of Xu for preventing zinc dendrite growth, reducing corrosion, and potentially increasing capacity retention; Xu, abstract)
Further, Xu teaches using xanthan gum (Xu, Introduction, second para.) as a gel electrolyte.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang and Cowper-Coles with the xanthan gum of Xu for using as electrolyte additives to improve the electrochemical performance of rechargeable zinc/manganese oxide containing batteries (Xu, Introduction, second para.)
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, and Xu does not disclose assembling the cathode and anode under an optical microscope.
Omale teaches using an optical microscope for assembling a battery (Omale, Fig. 4.1a, Fig. 4.8 and 4.1 Sample Fabrication).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, and Xu with the method of using optical microscope for obtaining optical micrographs in device fabrication (Omale, 4.1 Sample Fabrication).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale does not explicitly teach using cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition.
Rusi pertains to the instant invention because Rusi relates to preparing electrodes using electrodeposition process (Rusi, pg. 2, second par.).
Rusi teaches that potentiodynamic (cyclic voltammetry) is used to electrodeposit MnO2 (CY7 electrode; Rusi, pg. 3) for controlling nucleation and growth of the oxide particles as a result of the electrodeposition (Rusi, pg. 5).
Both of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale and Rusi pertain to using electrodeposition for preparing electrodes (Rusi, abstract). Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale does not explicitly teach using cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition. Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale does teach using electrodeposition for preparing microbattery electrodes (Su, Experimental procedure) for electrodepositing Mn oxides. Rusi teaches using cyclic voltammetry for electrodepositing Mn oxides.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale with the cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition of Rusi for preparing electrodes with improved electrochemical properties (Rusi, pg. 2).
In regards to claim 2, Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi discloses to the method of claim 1, wherein 0.2 M NiCl4 and 2 M NH4Cl solutions are used for obtaining a macroporous nickel electrodes (Marozzi, 2.1 Preparation of nickel electrodeposits).
In the instant case, the nickel precursor has a molar mass of 129.6 g/mol and ammonium precursor has a molar mass of 53.491 g/mol, so the mass ratio calculates to be 1 to 4.13.
Therefore, the mass ratio reads into the recited range, wherein the term “1:(1-10)” is interpreted as any mass ratio from ranging from 1:10 to 1:1.
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi discloses to the method of claim 1, wherein 80 mL (0.1 M) of manganese acetate and 0.4 mL PEDOT: PSS aqueous solution (1wt%) are electrodeposited (Su, 2.1 Preparation of the MnO2-PEDOT: PSS nanostructured composite electrode). The mass ratio of manganese acetate to EDOT calculates to be 0.5 to 8.28.
Therefore, the mass ratio reads into the recited range, wherein the term “0.5 to (10:1)” is interpreted as any mass ratio ranging from “0.5 to 10” to “0.5 to 1.”
In regards to claim 9, the instant claim recites a product-by-process, wherein Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi teaches a microbattery (Zeng, Fig. 1a), wherein the microbattery is prepared by the method for preparing a microbattery according to claim 1 (please see a rejection set forth above for claim 1).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al., "Achieving ultrahigh energy density and long durability in a flexible rechargeable quasi‐solid‐state Zn–MnO2 battery." Advanced Materials 29.26 (2017): 1700274 (hereinafter referred to as Zeng) in view of Kwang “Jeff” Yeh of US 2011/0059333 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yeh), Zhao et al., "Facile electrodeposition of freestanding MnO2/CNT film for high-performance on-chip all-solid-state rechargeable zinc-ion microbattery." Materials Letters 292 (2021): 129614) (hereinafter referred to as Zhao), Marozzi et al, "Development of electrode morphologies of interest in electrocatalysis: Part 2: Hydrogen evolution reaction on macroporous nickel electrodes." Electrochimica acta 46.6 (2001): 861-866 (hereinafter referred to as Marozzi), Zhibo Ren of CN 114381757 A (hereinafter referred to as Ren), Clark et al, "Nanostructured manganese oxide and manganese oxide/polyethylenedioxythiophene rods electrodeposited onto nickel foam for supercapacitor applications." Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 47 (2017): 39-49 (hereinafter referred to as Clark), Su et al. "Co-electro-deposition of the MnO2–PEDOT: PSS nanostructured composite for high areal mass, flexible asymmetric supercapacitor devices." Journal of Materials Chemistry A 1.40 (2013): 12432-12440 (hereinafter referred to as Su), Changjiang Yang of CN 104120474 A (hereinafter referred to as Yang), Cowper-Coles (US0898189A), Xu et al, "Fabricating a gel electrolyte based on lignin-coated nanosilica to enhance the reversibility of zinc anodes for rechargeable aqueous Zn/MnO2 batteries." ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 10.6 (2022): 2063-2071 (hereinafter referred to as Xu), Omale et al, " High-areal capacity microbatteries from symmetrical interdigitated 3D nanowire network electrodes", 2018, (hereinafter referred to as Omale) and Rusi, and S. R. Majid. "Effects of electrodeposition mode and deposition cycle on the electrochemical performance of MnO2-NiO composite electrodes for high-energy-density supercapacitors." PloS one 11.5 (2016): e0154566 (hereinafter referred to as Rusi) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Suk (KR20170004266A) and Sakhairi (Sakhairi et al. "Effect of Zinc Precursor on Interdigitated Electrode using Electrochemical Deposition Method." 2021 IEEE Regional Symposium on Micro and Nanoelectronics (RSM). IEEE, 2021).
In regards to claim 3, Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale discloses to the adopting a method of electrodeposition process at a 10.0 V DC voltage (Su, page 12433, 2.1 Preparation of the MnO2-PEDOT:PSS nanostructured composite electrode), using a three-electrode deposition method with a platinum sheet as a counter electrode (Su, page 12433, 2.1 Preparation of the MnO2-PEDOT:PSS nanostructured composite electrode).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi does not disclose using a metal-based interdigital microelectrode as a working electrode and silver/silver chloride electrode as a reference electrode.
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi does not disclose conducting deposition at a constant voltage of -3 V to -5 V for 10 s to 200 s.
Suk discloses using Ag/AgCl as a reference electrode (Suk, paragraph [0060], Example 1) and conducting deposition at a constant voltage of -4 V for 200 s (Suk, paragraph [0069], Example 4).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi with the deposition method of Suk for forming a porous electrode by electrolytic plating (Suk, paragraph [0001]).
Zeng in view of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, Rusi and Suk does not disclose using a metal-based interdigital microelectrode as a working electrode.
Sakhairi discloses a method of electrochemical deposition using interdigitated electrodes as a working electrode (Sakhairi, page 30, I. INTRODUCTION, fifth para.).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, Rusi and Suk with the deposition method of Sakhairi for performing electrochemical deposition on the interdigitated electrode (Sakhairi, page 30, I. INTRODUCTION, fifth para.).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al., "Achieving ultrahigh energy density and long durability in a flexible rechargeable quasi‐solid‐state Zn–MnO2 battery." Advanced Materials 29.26 (2017): 1700274 (hereinafter referred to as Zeng) in view of Kwang “Jeff” Yeh of US 2011/0059333 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yeh), Zhao et al., "Facile electrodeposition of freestanding MnO2/CNT film for high-performance on-chip all-solid-state rechargeable zinc-ion microbattery." Materials Letters 292 (2021): 129614) (hereinafter referred to as Zhao), Marozzi et al, "Development of electrode morphologies of interest in electrocatalysis: Part 2: Hydrogen evolution reaction on macroporous nickel electrodes." Electrochimica acta 46.6 (2001): 861-866 (hereinafter referred to as Marozzi), Zhibo Ren of CN 114381757 A (hereinafter referred to as Ren), Clark et al, "Nanostructured manganese oxide and manganese oxide/polyethylenedioxythiophene rods electrodeposited onto nickel foam for supercapacitor applications." Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 47 (2017): 39-49 (hereinafter referred to as Clark), Su et al. "Co-electro-deposition of the MnO2–PEDOT: PSS nanostructured composite for high areal mass, flexible asymmetric supercapacitor devices." Journal of Materials Chemistry A 1.40 (2013): 12432-12440 (hereinafter referred to as Su), Changjiang Yang of CN 104120474 A (hereinafter referred to as Yang), Cowper-Coles (US0898189A), Xu et al, "Fabricating a gel electrolyte based on lignin-coated nanosilica to enhance the reversibility of zinc anodes for rechargeable aqueous Zn/MnO2 batteries." ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 10.6 (2022): 2063-2071 (hereinafter referred to as Xu), Omale et al, " High-areal capacity microbatteries from symmetrical interdigitated 3D nanowire network electrodes", 2018, (hereinafter referred to as Omale) and Rusi, and S. R. Majid. "Effects of electrodeposition mode and deposition cycle on the electrochemical performance of MnO2-NiO composite electrodes for high-energy-density supercapacitors." PloS one 11.5 (2016): e0154566 (hereinafter referred to as Rusi) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Suk (KR20170004266A) and Sakhairi (Sakhairi et al. "Effect of Zinc Precursor on Interdigitated Electrode using Electrochemical Deposition Method." 2021 IEEE Regional Symposium on Micro and Nanoelectronics (RSM). IEEE, 2021) as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Jia (CN108242531A)
In regards to claim 4, Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, Rusi, Suk, and Sakhairi discloses to the method of claim 3, wherein cyclic deposition for 50-500 cycles at a scan rate of 1-500 mV/s is performed (Yang, paragraph [0014]).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, Rusi, Suk, and Sakhairi does not disclose scanning at a voltage of 0 V to 0.9 V.
Jia discloses cyclic deposition, wherein the used voltage range is preferably -0.2 to 1.2 V (Jia, paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, Rusi, Suk, and Sakhairi with the voltage of Jia for using cyclic voltammetry for deposition (Jia, paragraph [0031]).
Claim 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al., "Achieving ultrahigh energy density and long durability in a flexible rechargeable quasi‐solid‐state Zn–MnO2 battery." Advanced Materials 29.26 (2017): 1700274 (hereinafter referred to as Zeng) in view of Kwang “Jeff” Yeh of US 2011/0059333 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yeh), Zhao et al., "Facile electrodeposition of freestanding MnO2/CNT film for high-performance on-chip all-solid-state rechargeable zinc-ion microbattery." Materials Letters 292 (2021): 129614) (hereinafter referred to as Zhao), Marozzi et al, "Development of electrode morphologies of interest in electrocatalysis: Part 2: Hydrogen evolution reaction on macroporous nickel electrodes." Electrochimica acta 46.6 (2001): 861-866 (hereinafter referred to as Marozzi), Zhibo Ren of CN 114381757 A (hereinafter referred to as Ren), Clark et al, "Nanostructured manganese oxide and manganese oxide/polyethylenedioxythiophene rods electrodeposited onto nickel foam for supercapacitor applications." Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 47 (2017): 39-49 (hereinafter referred to as Clark), Su et al. "Co-electro-deposition of the MnO2–PEDOT: PSS nanostructured composite for high areal mass, flexible asymmetric supercapacitor devices." Journal of Materials Chemistry A 1.40 (2013): 12432-12440 (hereinafter referred to as Su), Changjiang Yang of CN 104120474 A (hereinafter referred to as Yang), Cowper-Coles (US0898189A), Xu et al, "Fabricating a gel electrolyte based on lignin-coated nanosilica to enhance the reversibility of zinc anodes for rechargeable aqueous Zn/MnO2 batteries." ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 10.6 (2022): 2063-2071 (hereinafter referred to as Xu), Omale et al, " High-areal capacity microbatteries from symmetrical interdigitated 3D nanowire network electrodes", 2018, (hereinafter referred to as Omale) and Rusi, and S. R. Majid. "Effects of electrodeposition mode and deposition cycle on the electrochemical performance of MnO2-NiO composite electrodes for high-energy-density supercapacitors." PloS one 11.5 (2016): e0154566 (hereinafter referred to as Rusi) as applied to claims 1 above, and in further view of Hu (CN103117396A).
In regards to claim 5, Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi discloses a mass ratio of the zinc sulfate to the sodium sulfate as 1 to 1 (Zeng, page 1700274 (6 of 7), Preparation of Zn Cathode).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi discloses a mass ratio of the carbon nanotubes to the magnesium nitrate is 0.5 to 0.494 (Yeh, paragraph [0031]) because 15 mg of functionalized MWNTs are dispersed with added 10-4 mol of Mg(NO3)2. However, Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi does not disclose the mass ratio to be between 0.5 to 10 and 0.5 to 1.
Hu discloses the mass ratio 0.5 to 1 (Hu, paragraph [0018]), wherein the feed ratio of carbon nanotubes to magnesium nitrate is 1 mg to 2 mg.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi with the mass ratio of Hu for performing electrophoresis in manufacturing a battery electrode (Hu, paragraph [0017] - [0019]).
In regards to claim 7, Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi, and Hu discloses to the method of claim 5, wherein the method contains conducting deposition at a constant voltage of 10 V for 20 minutes (Su, Fig. 2 and page 12435, third para.).
In regards to claim 8, Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi discloses adding manganese sulfate (the gel was prepared by mixing 3M LiCl, 2M ZnCl2, 0.4M MnSO4, lignocellulose, and PVA in deionized water; Zeng, Fabrication of Quai-Solid State Zn-MnO2 Battery) and zinc sulfate (Xu, abstract) into water. Zeng discloses vigorously stirring for preparing gel electrolyte (Zeng, Fabrication of Quai-Solid State Zn-MnO2 Battery). Xanthan gum is a well-known additive for preparing an electrolyte (Xu, Introduction, second para.).
Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi does not disclose sonicating.
Hu discloses ultrasonic dispersion of mixed solutions (Hu, paragraph [0018]). Using sonication in addition to stirring for dispersing and mixing is well-known in preparing a solution.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi with the ultrasonic dispersion of Hu for performing ultrasonic dispersion (Hu, paragraph [0018]) for each mixing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s argument is almost identical, if not the same, to the arguments filed 08/05/2025. Please refer to response in the final rejection issued on 10/01/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of 11, filed 08/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zeng et al., "Achieving ultrahigh energy density and long durability in a flexible rechargeable quasi‐solid‐state Zn–MnO2 battery." Advanced Materials 29.26 (2017): 1700274 (hereinafter referred to as Zeng) in view of Kwang “Jeff” Yeh of US 2011/0059333 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yeh), Zhao et al., "Facile electrodeposition of freestanding MnO2/CNT film for high-performance on-chip all-solid-state rechargeable zinc-ion microbattery." Materials Letters 292 (2021): 129614) (hereinafter referred to as Zhao), Marozzi et al, "Development of electrode morphologies of interest in electrocatalysis: Part 2: Hydrogen evolution reaction on macroporous nickel electrodes." Electrochimica acta 46.6 (2001): 861-866 (hereinafter referred to as Marozzi), Zhibo Ren of CN 114381757 A (hereinafter referred to as Ren), Clark et al, "Nanostructured manganese oxide and manganese oxide/polyethylenedioxythiophene rods electrodeposited onto nickel foam for supercapacitor applications." Journal of Applied Electrochemistry 47 (2017): 39-49 (hereinafter referred to as Clark), Su et al. "Co-electro-deposition of the MnO2–PEDOT: PSS nanostructured composite for high areal mass, flexible asymmetric supercapacitor devices." Journal of Materials Chemistry A 1.40 (2013): 12432-12440 (hereinafter referred to as Su), Changjiang Yang of CN 104120474 A (hereinafter referred to as Yang), Cowper-Coles (US0898189A), Xu et al, "Fabricating a gel electrolyte based on lignin-coated nanosilica to enhance the reversibility of zinc anodes for rechargeable aqueous Zn/MnO2 batteries." ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 10.6 (2022): 2063-2071 (hereinafter referred to as Xu), Omale et al, " High-areal capacity microbatteries from symmetrical interdigitated 3D nanowire network electrodes", 2018, (hereinafter referred to as Omale) and Rusi, and S. R. Majid. "Effects of electrodeposition mode and deposition cycle on the electrochemical performance of MnO2-NiO composite electrodes for high-energy-density supercapacitors." PloS one 11.5 (2016): e0154566 (hereinafter referred to as Rusi). Please refer to the rejection above.
On page 9 of 11, the applicant asserts that claim 1, as amended, teaches gradient cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition process instead of the co-electrodeposition technique of Su, which performs at a constant voltage. The applicant argues that the recited “cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition” overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patently distinct from the co-electrodeposition of Su because cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition can “densely fill” the pore inner surface of the porous nickel in contrast to the co-electrodeposition of Su. The applicant argues that the co-electrodeposition technique of Su would not have been as effective as means of electrodepositing mixed active materials onto porous substrate in preparing electrodes for batteries.
The Examiner agrees that the term “cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition” is not taught by Su. However, the technique of “cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition” has been known in preparing electrodes, as taught by Rusi.
Rusi pertains to the instant invention because Rusi relates to preparing electrodes using electrodeposition process (Rusi, pg. 2, second par.).
Rusi teaches that potentiodynamic (cyclic voltammetry) is used to electrodeposit MnO2 (CY7 electrode; Rusi, pg. 3) for controlling nucleation and growth of the oxide particles as a result of the electrodeposition (Rusi, pg. 5).
Both of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale and Rusi pertain to using electrodeposition for preparing electrodes (Rusi, abstract). Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale does not explicitly teach using cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition. Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale does teach using electrodeposition for preparing microbattery electrodes (Su, Experimental procedure) for electrodepositing Mn oxides. Rusi teaches using cyclic voltammetry for electrodepositing Mn oxides.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, and Omale with the cyclic voltammetry electrodeposition of Rusi for preparing electrodes with improved electrochemical properties (Rusi, pg. 2).
On page 11 of 11, the applicant asserts that Xu used carbon films as the current collector, whereas carbon nanotubes loaded on brass microelectrode functions to provide additional electron transmission paths. The applicant asserts that the zinc nanosheets loaded on the carbon nanofilm does not provide additional electron transmission paths and therefore fails to arrive at the instant invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In particular, Zeng in view of Yeh, Marozzi, Ren, Clark, Su, Zhao, Yang, Cowper-Coles, Xu, Omale, and Rusi teaches using carbon nanotubes (Yeh, paragraph [0008]), wherein a plurality of carbon nanotubes are known to be dispersed in a conductive matrix. The carbon nanotubes conduct electricity to decrease electrical resistance and improve conductivity (Yeh, paragraph [0008]). Electrodes comprising carbon nanotubes are well known to improve reaction routes via the carbon nanotubes (Yeh, paragraph [0011]).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794