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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, “DOD” should read the full name “depth of discharge”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2020086835 A1) in view of Tang et al. (CN 115000532 A) and Thompson et al. (US 20220367911 A1) and further in view of the evidence given by CELGARD® brand microporous separator. It is noted that the disclosures of Zhang et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 1, 3-8, and 11:
PNG
media_image1.png
430
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang et al. teaches an alkaline secondary battery, i.e. rechargeable battery, comprising an anode, a cathode (Abstract, 0053), and an electrolyte present between the anode and the cathode, where the electrolyte can comprise an alkaline electrolyte (e.g. an alkaline hydroxide, such as NaOH, KOH, LiOH, or mixtures thereof) (0043). Huang et al. teaches in Figure 1 above, a cathode material 2 and an anode material 5 (0023). Given that Huang et al. discloses an alkaline secondary battery, the cathode material would necessarily inherently be connected to a first terminal and the anode material would necessarily inherently be connected to a second terminal.
The anode material can comprise zinc, which can be present as elemental zinc and/or zinc oxide (0035) and the cathode comprises a nickel oxyhydroxide electrode (0080), i.e. a nickel-zinc battery.
Huang et al. also teaches a separator that can be disposed between the anode and the cathode and can comprise a CELGARD® brand microporous separator (0042) which as evidenced by CELGARD®, is a polymer film.
However, Huang et al. does not teach a solvent or a hydroxide electrolyte concentration of at least 10 M, wherein the hydroxide electrolyte inhibits hydrogen evolution from approximately 20% to less than 5% of an overall reaction.
Tang et al. teaches an alkaline aqueous zinc-based battery (n0004) and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) has high polarity and good stability in acidic and alkaline media and can dissolve a variety of inorganic salts (n0003).
Tang et al. also teaches DMSO is an alkali-resistant and antifreeze additive to construct a stable aqueous electrolyte with a minimum freezing point of -90°C, enabling the zinc-based battery based on this electrolyte to operate stably under low-temperature conditions (n0004), and the alkaline aqueous electrolyte lowers the freezing point of the electrolyte, delays zinc anode corrosion, and prevents zinc dendrite formation, thereby protecting the zinc anode (n0006).
In light of the motivation for using DMSO in the electrolyte disclosed by Tang et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DMSO in the electrolyte in the secondary battery of Huang et al. in order to obtain a stable aqueous electrolyte, allow for operability at low-temperature conditions, delay zinc anode corrosion, prevent zinc dendrite formation, and protect the zinc anode.
Thompson et al. teaches a battery, comprising: a first electrode, an electrolyte, and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode or the electrolyte includes an additive containing an element that has a low hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) activity and/or improves charging (reduction) of the first electrode (0008).
Thompson et al. also teaches highly concentrated alkaline electrolytes including high hydroxide concentrations, such as hydroxide concentrations at or above about 7 M to about 11 M. In various embodiments, hydroxides in the electrolytes may include any one or more of KOH, NaOH, LiOH, Ca(OH)2 and mixtures thereof (0079).
Further, Thompson et al. teaches hydroxide concentrations less than about 6 M with certain anode materials result in worse performance than in higher hydroxide concentrations, where hydroxide influences battery capacity (0081).
In light of the motivation for using high hydroxide concentrations at or above about 7 M to about 11 M disclosed by Thompson et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use high hydroxide concentrations at or above about 7 M to about 11 M in the secondary battery of Huang et al. in order to prevent poor performance of the battery and have desired battery capacity.
Given that Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. disclose a secondary battery as presently claimed, the hydroxide electrolyte would necessarily inherently inhibit hydrogen evolution from approximately 20% to less than 5% of and overall reaction (0079). Further, the secondary battery would necessarily inherently have enhanced cycling stability and coulombic efficiency including when cycled at 40% DOD under charging and discharging at 15 mA/cmZn2, and exhibit a cycling stability with a capacity retention greater than 80% after 290 cycles.
Regarding claim 2:
Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. teaches a secondary battery as set forth above.
Further, Huang et al. teaches a barrier layer, i.e. gasket, which can fully cover one or more of the electrodes and can be sufficiently mechanically strong to prevent the exposed current collector from cutting through the regular membrane to prevent the electrical short circuits from happening (0017). The materials can include, but are not limited to, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polyamide, cellulose acetate, cellophane, polyvinyl chloride, and polyvinyl alcohol (0018), and the barrier layer seals around the electrode material (Claim 16).
Regarding claim 9:
Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. teaches a secondary battery as set forth above.
Further, Huang et al. teaches the electrolyte can comprise zinc oxide (0043).
Regarding claim 12:
Given that Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. disclose a secondary battery as presently claimed, the secondary battery would necessarily inherently demonstrate an ionic conductivity of at least 0.2 S/cm at room temperature.
Regarding claim 13:
Given that Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. disclose a secondary battery as presently claimed, the hydroxide electrolyte would necessarily inherently exhibit a practical electrochemical window expanded to at least 2.1 V.
Regarding claim 14:
Given that Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. disclose a secondary battery as presently claimed, when cycled at 60% DOD under charging and discharging at 30 mA/cmZn2, the rechargeable alkaline battery would necessarily exhibit a capacity retention greater than 95% after 90 cycles, maintaining at least 95% coulombic efficiency, and further sustain operation for over 135 cycles while retaining a specific capacity of at least 60%.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2020086835 A1) in view of Tang et al. (CN 115000532 A), Thompson et al. (US 20220367911 A1), and Mendoza (WO 2022077058 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. teaches a secondary battery as set forth above.
However, Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. does not teach the concentration of the metallic oxide is 0.001-5 mol/L.
Mendoza teaches an optimum concentration range of the secondary alkaline electrolyte-zinc oxide is 16 g/L to 21 g/L (0036). Using the given concentration in g/L and molar mass of zinc oxide, it is calculated that the molarity is 0.197 mol/L to 0.258 mol/L, meeting the claimed concentration.
Further, Mendoza teaches this concentration range ensures that the pH of the secondary electrolyte will not reduce or increase the alkaline electrolyte pH which will cause significant reduction to the operating voltage or speeding up of anodic corrosion (0036)
In light of the motivation for using a zinc oxide concentration of 16 g/L to 21 g/L disclosed by Mendoza as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a zinc oxide concentration of 16 g/L to 21 g/L in the secondary battery of Huang et al. in view of Tang et al. and Thompson et al. in order to avoid significant reduction to the operating voltage or speeding up of anodic corrosion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights