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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 18 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passaniti et al. (US-5389469-A) in view of Zhou et al. (US-20130071744-A1) as evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich (see attached NPL) and in view Huang et al. (US-20080241682-A1) and as evidenced by Takeuchi (US-5807645-A).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 23, Passaniti discloses an alkaline battery (electrochemical cell; Col. 1, lines 5-6; Col. 4, lines 26-43). Although Passaniti does not explicitly teach that the alkaline battery is a secondary battery, Passaniti discloses that it is known in the art to have secondary zinc alkaline cells (Col. 3, lines 3-6), and Zhou teaches that an alkaline battery can be either a primary battery or a secondary battery [0070].
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 the alkaline battery of Passaniti to be an alkaline secondary battery with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful alkaline battery. Passaniti discloses that the alkaline secondary battery comprises:
a positive electrode (cathode body; Col. 4, lines 26-31) that is provided with a positive electrode mixture layer (cathode material; Col. 3, lines 45-49);
a negative electrode (anode; Col. 4, line 39); and
an alkaline electrolyte (Col. 4, lines 37-39; Col. 5, lines 66-67),
wherein the positive electrode mixture layer contains particles of a silver oxide (Ag2O; Col. 3, lines 51-61; Col. 5, lines 5-6, 12-13, 57-62).
Passaniti discloses that the positive electrode mixture can contain a variety of other additive materials (Col. 7, lines 32-35; Col. 8, lines 48-54; Col. 9, lines 19-21) such as a cathode additives selected from the group consisting of graphite, Ag2O, MnO2, NiOOH, CaO, MgO, HgO, CdO, CdS, carbon, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and metallic silver (Col. 4, lines 15-21; Col. 8, lines 48-54). The oxide additives (i.e. MnO2, CaO, MgO, HgO and/or CdO) read on “insulating inorganic particles”, the additives graphite and/or carbon read on “carbon particles”, and the additive PTFE reads on “a binder”.
Although Passaniti does not disclose in a single embodiment that the positive electrode mixture layer contains insulating inorganic particles (i.e. MnO2, CaO, MgO, HgO or CdO), carbon particles (i.e. graphite and carbon), and a binder (i.e. PTFE), such a combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since Passaniti discloses each as a suitable additive to a cathode material (MPEP 2144.06, I), and since Passaniti contemplates that “a variety of ‘additive’ materials can be added to the reacted cathode material” (Col. 8, lines 48-49). Therefore, Passaniti renders obvious a positive electrode mixture which contains insulating inorganic particles, carbon particles, and a binder as required by Claims 1 and 23.
Passaniti discloses that the cathode additive can be added to the dried cathode mixture (Col. 4 line 67 – Col. 5 line 2), thereby disclosing insulating inorganic particles which “are present outside the silver oxide particles”.
Passaniti discloses that the invention is applied to a silver oxide / zinc button cell (Col. 5, lines 22-23), and that a “variety” of additives (i.e. including insulating inorganic particles) can be added to the cathode (Col. 8, lines 48-54). The additives are “cost-reducing” compared to the silver oxide material (Col. 8, lines 48-54; Col. 10, lines 3-7). Passaniti does not teach the average particle size of the insulating inorganic particles, or that the insulating particles are oxides particles selected from the group consisting of Si, Zr, Ti and Al.
Zhou teaches a similar alkaline secondary battery [0070, 0072-0073, 0216-0220] comprising a silver oxide cathode material ([0089, 0112-0123]; Example 1) and a zinc anode [0089, 0122, 0210]. The cathode further comprises a stabilizing agent [0108, 0115], which can be selected from a group including, among others, SiO2, ZrO2, TiO2, Al2O3, MgO and MnO2 [0115]. The Examiner notes that this establishes SiO2, ZrO2, TiO2 and Al2O3, as substitutable alternatives to MgO and MnO2 (MPEP 2144.06, II). In specific embodiments, the stabilizing agent is selected to be SiO2 (Example 3; [0163]) or ZrO2 (Example 4; [0169]), thereby rendering obvious such inorganic oxides with sufficient specificity. The stabilizing agent has a diameter less than 250 nm, thereby enabling the stabilizing particles to associate with the silver particles [0111, 0114-0115]. Advantageously, the use of stabilizing particles as taught by Zhou results in alkaline secondary batteries with excellent cycle life and more desirable charge characteristics, material properties and Coulombic efficiency than those without the stabilizing agent [0219].
Additionally, Sigma-Aldrich evidences that SiO2 ($101 per 500 g) and ZrO2 ($275 per 250 g) are both cost-reducing additives compared to Ag2O ($1,280 per 250 g).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the inorganic oxide materials taught by Passaniti (i.e. MnO2, CaO, MgO, HgO or CdO) for SiO2 or ZrO2 with a diameter less than 250 nm as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful alkaline secondary battery with excellent cycle life and desirable charge characteristics, material properties, and Coulombic efficiency. The diameter of 250 nm or less rendered obvious by modified Passaniti is within the claimed range of “0.5 µm or less” as recited in Claims 1 and 23. The use of SiO2 or ZrO2 reads on “wherein the positive electrode mixture layer contains, as the insulating inorganic particles, oxide particles of at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Zr, Ti and Al” as recited in Claims 1 and 23. The SiO2 and ZrO2 particles rendered obvious by modified Passaniti correspond to “insulating inorganic particles” since under a first interpretation, the term “insulating” can be interpreted to mean thermally insulating. The oxide materials rendered obvious by the prior art are understood to be at least somewhat thermally insulating, thereby reading on “insulating inorganic particles”. Additionally, under a second interpretation, the term “insulating” can be interpreted to mean electrically insulating. The SiO2 and ZrO2 particles of the prior art are understood to be electrically insulating as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0033]. Absent a special definition, either interpretation of the term “insulating” is considered relevant to the claims, as evidenced by the Merriam Webster Dictionary.
As discussed above, Passaniti renders obvious the use of both graphite and carbon in the cathode material. Passaniti does not explicitly teach that the carbon particles are carbon black particles.
Huang teaches a button-type cell which includes a silver oxide positive electrode material, a zinc-containing negative electrode material, and an alkaline electrolyte [0012, 0015, 0029, 0032, 0035, 0048-0049]. Huang teaches that silver-containing oxide materials are relatively poor conductors, and that conductive materials such as one or more of graphite, carbon black, and acetylene black can be added to the positive electrode material [0034].
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 the carbon additives of modified Passaniti to be graphite particles and carbon black particles with a reasonable expectation that such a selection of carbon additives would result in a successful cathode material capable of increasing the conductivity of the silver oxide cathode material (MPEP 2144.06, I-II).
Furthermore, since Passaniti renders obvious the use of graphite and “carbon”, and since Huang teaches graphite and carbon black as suitable conductive additives in a silver oxide cathode material, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting the “carbon” of modified Passaniti to be carbon black would result in a successful cathode material, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
As laid out above, Passaniti discloses that the positive electrode mixture layer contains Ag2O as the silver oxide (Col. 3, lines 51-61; Col. 5, lines 57-62; Col. 6, lines 11-13). Although Passaniti does not specifically teach that “a content of Ag2O in the positive electrode mixture layer is 60 mass% or more” as required by Claims 1 and 23, Passaniti does disclose that the content of Ag2O is about 24% to about 75% (Col. 3, lines 55-58; Col. 6, lines 11-13), which overlaps the claimed range. 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 any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful positive electrode mixture layer for use in an alkaline secondary battery (MPEP 2144.01, I).
Passaniti discloses that the cathode additives are typically added at levels between 2 – 12% by weight (Col. 4, lines 20-21). Passaniti further discloses an embodiment wherein 2% by weight of binder (i.e. PTFE) is added to improve the ability of the cathode mixture to form pellets (Col. 9, lines 14-15, 19-21). Passaniti does not explicitly teach a single embodiment wherein a content of the insulating inorganic particles in the positive electrode mixture layer is “0.1 to 7 mass%” as required by Claim 1 or “0.1 to 5 mass%” as required by Claim 2, and wherein a content of the graphite particles in the positive electrode mixture layer is “2 to 7 mass%” as required by Claim 1 or “2 to 4 mass%” as required by Claim 3, wherein a content of carbon black particles in the positive electrode mixture layer is “0.5 mass% or more” as required by Claim 1 or wherein a content of binder in the positive electrode mixture layer is “0.1 to 20 mass%” as required by Claim 1.
In the related prior art, additives of insulating inorganic particles are known to be present in an amount that provides additional stability to the cathode active material as taught by Zhou [Zhou: 0115]. Additionally, carbon black and graphite are added to increase conductivity of a silver oxide cathode material, preferably at an amount of 2 to 6 wt% as taught by Huang [Huang: 0034]. Furthermore, the binder improves the moldability of the cathode material, as disclosed by Passaniti (Col. 9, lines 19-21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize each of the cathode additives in order to sum to Passaniti’s disclosed 2-12% by weight, including selecting the content of the insulating inorganic particles in the positive electrode mixture layer to be within the range of “0.1 to 5 mass%” (which falls within the range recited in Claim 1 and corresponds to the range recited in Claim 2), selecting the content of the graphite particles in the positive electrode mixture layer to be within the claimed range of “2 to 4 mass%” (which falls within the range recited in Claim 1 and corresponds to the range recited in Claim 3), selecting the content of carbon black particles in the positive electrode mixture layer to be within the claimed range of “0.5 mass% or more”, and selecting the content of binder in the positive electrode mixture layer to be within the claimed range of “0.1 to 20 mass%”, with a reasonable expectation that providing such a content of insulating inorganic particles, graphite particles, carbon black particles, and binder would result in a successful balance between stability, conductivity, and moldability (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Selection of such contents of materials within the claimed ranges is reasonable as evidenced by Zhou, Takeuchi, and Passaniti. Specifically, Zhou evidences a reasonable expectation of success in adding 0.11 wt% of stabilizing agent (corresponds to insulating inorganic particles) to a silver oxide cathode material (see Table 2: Example 4; [0115, 0169, 0193]), Takeuchi evidences a reasonable expectation of success in adding 1% carbon black and 2% graphite to a silver vanadium oxide cathode material (Example 1, Group I: Col. 6, line 62 – Col. 7, line 2), and Passaniti evidences a reasonable expectation of success in adding 2 wt% of binder to the cathode material (Col. 9, lines 14-15).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Passaniti renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Passaniti discloses that the silver oxide can comprise “about 24 to about 75 percent Ag2O” (Col. 3: lines 51-58). The recitation of “about” in Passaniti is interpreted as allowing for ranges slightly above and slightly below the disclosed ranges. Therefore, although Passaniti does not explicitly teach that the content of Ag2O in the positive electrode mixture layer is 80 mass% or more, 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 the content of Ag2O to be 80% with a reasonable expectation that such a content of Ag2O would result in a successful positive electrode mixture layer (MPEP 2144.05, I). Based on the current evidence of record, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a positive electrode mixture layer comprising 80 mass% or Ag2O to exhibit the same properties as a positive electrode mixture layer comprising “about 75%” Ag2O.
Additionally, Passaniti discloses that AgO is reduced to Ag2O during initial discharge (Col. 1, lines 28-31). Therefore, it is understood that the content of Ag2O can increase as AgO is reduced during discharge. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the content of Ag2O would fall within the claimed range of 80 mass% or more during the course of discharging the alkaline battery.
Regarding Claims 19 and 21, modified Passaniti renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Passaniti discloses that AgO is reacted with bismuth to form a compound comprising silver, bismuth, and oxygen (Col. 3, lines 60-66, Col. 4, lines 3-15, lines 34-35). The compound can be present on the Ag2O cathode material (see Fig. 1). Therefore, the Ag2O is interpreted as containing Bi, as required by Claim 19. A compound comprising silver, bismuth, and oxygen is further interpreted as reading on an oxide of Bi, Therefore, the Bi is present as an oxide, as required by Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Passaniti renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Passaniti does not teach that a content of the Bi in the Ag2O material is 0.3 mass% or more and 13 mass% or less, Passaniti does disclose that the addition of bismuth helps to prevent cell expansion due to cathode decomposition or gassing (Col. 9, lines 64-66) and that the cathode material can comprise about 6 to 18% AgBiO3 (Col. 3, lines 55-57).
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 a content of AgBiO3 such that the content of Bi in Ag2O is within the claimed range of 0.3 mass% to 13 mass% with a reasonable expectation that such a content of Bi would result in a successful positive electrode mixture layer capable of preventing cell expansion (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Passaniti renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Passaniti discloses that AgO suffers performance deficiency (Col, 10, lines 29-31). For instance, AgO can decompose when it comes into contact with an electrolyte, thereby increasing pressure inside a sealed cell and reducing capacity (Col. 1, lines 23-26). Passaniti also discloses that the cathode material “preferably” includes AgO (Col. 3, lines 66-68).
Therefore, although modified Passaniti does not teach an embodiment wherein the positive electrode mixture layer “does not contain AgO”, 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 the cathode material such that it does not comprise AgO with a reasonable expectation that a positive electrode mixture layer that does not contain AgO would result in a successful alkaline secondary battery (MPEP 2123, II).
Furthermore, Passaniti discloses that AgO is reduced to Ag2O during initial discharge (Col. 1, lines 28-31). Therefore, when the battery is initially discharged, it is understood to be in a state wherein all AgO has been reduced to Ag2O, and the positive electrode mixture layer “does not contain AgO”.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passaniti et al. (US-5389469-A) in view of Zhou et al. (US-20130071744-A1) as evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich (see attached NPL) and in view Huang et al. (US-20080241682-A1) and as evidenced by Takeuchi (US-5807645-A) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Takagi et al. (JP-2000036318-A; see English translation provided 10/03/2023 for citations), Kenichi et al. (CN-1832235-A; see English translation provided 01/03/2025 for citations), and Meckfessel Jones et al. (US-20130244101-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Passaniti renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Passaniti discloses that the negative electrode of the silver oxide-zinc battery is a zinc anode (Col. 1, lines 16-17; Col. 4, line 39; Col. 5, lines 19-23; Col. 9, lines 28-30). Although modified Passaniti does not explicitly teach that the zinc anode contains zinc-based particles, such a configuration would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since Huang teaches that the zinc materials of an alkaline cell negative electrode can be zinc powder which can be a zinc metal or a zinc alloy [0049]. A zinc powder is understood be a collection of zinc particles (i.e. zinc metal particles or zinc alloy particles), absent a special definition in the instant specification. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting the zinc anode of modified Passaniti to be a zinc anode containing zinc-based particles selected from zinc particles and zinc alloy particles (MPEP 2144.07).
Passaniti discloses that the electrolyte can be sodium hydroxide, “or other alkaline electrolyte” (Col. 5, lines 66-67) and discloses an embodiment wherein a “conventional alkaline electrolyte” (Col. 9, lines 28-29) is used. Modified Passaniti does not teach that the alkaline electrolyte contains potassium or sodium hydroxide and lithium hydroxide.
Takagi teaches an alkaline battery which can suppress self-discharge and/or corrosion of a negative electrode active material (Abstract). Takagi teaches that the negative electrode mixture includes zinc [0001]. Takagi teaches that the cause of deterioration of the capacity of the alkaline battery containing zinc in the negative electrode active material is the self-discharge and corrosion of the zinc powder (Pg. 3, first paragraph). Takagi teaches an alkaline electrolyte solution comprising potassium hydroxide and lithium hydroxide in a molar ratio range of 10:1 to 1:10 (Abstract; Pg. 3, Embodiment 1). The combined weight of potassium hydroxide and lithium hydroxide in the alkaline electrolyte is 25% to 55% [0006]. Advantageously, Takagi teaches that by using a binary mixed alkaline electrolyte containing lithium hydroxide, the self-discharge and corrosion of the zinc powder can be suppressed (Pg. 3, second paragraph). In addition, lithium hydroxide can improve conductivity and improve discharge characteristics (Pg. 3, Par. 3).
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 the “conventional alkaline electrolyte” of modified Passaniti to be a mixture of potassium hydroxide and lithium hydroxide as taught by Takagi with a reasonable expectation that selecting a mixture of KOH and LiOH would result in a successful alkaline electrolyte solution capable of suppressing deterioration of the capacity of the alkaline battery.
Passaniti discloses that a “conventional semipermeable membrane” is used in the alkaline battery (Col. 9, lines 31-32). Modified Passaniti does not teach the addition of polyalkylene glycol to the alkaline electrolyte.
Kenichi teaches a silver oxide battery which uses silver oxide as the cathode material [0002-0003] and zinc particles or zinc alloy particles in the anode [0027, 0040]. Kenichi further teaches that a separator containing a cellophane film is preferred since the cellophane film has a low resistance and can be expected to improve the heavy load characteristics of the battery [0046].
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 the separator (i.e. semipermeable membrane) of modified Passaniti to contain a cellophane film with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in improved heavy load characteristics for an alkaline secondary battery.
Meckfessel Jones teaches an electrolyte which can be applied to a zinc-based battery such as a zinc silver battery [0011]. The electrolyte comprises alkyl-capped polyethylene glycol (PEG), an alkaline agent, and water [0013, 0080]. Advantageously, Meckfessel Jones teaches that by using an electrolyte comprising PEG, an alkaline agent, and water, the electrolyte is improved and is capable of plasticizing and/or maintaining plasticity of a cellophane separator [0032-0033].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have included PEG in the alkaline electrolyte solution of modified Passaniti with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful alkaline electrolyte capable of maintaining the plasticity of a cellophane separator in an alkaline secondary battery.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Passaniti renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Passaniti does not explicitly teach that the alkaline electrolyte contains the lithium hydroxide in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by mass, Takagi teaches that the total mass of potassium hydroxide and lithium hydroxide is preferably 25% to 55% and that the molar ratio of potassium hydroxide to lithium hydroxide is within a range of 10:1 to 1:10 (Abstract). Takagi further teaches that lithium hydroxide aids in suppression of the self-discharge and corrosion of the zinc powder (Takagi: Pg. 3, second paragraph) and in improving conductivity and discharge characteristics (Takagi: Pg. 3, Par. 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of lithium hydroxide in the alkaline electrolyte, including selecting the content of lithium hydroxide to be 0.1 to 5% by mass, such that the advantageous effects of the addition of lithium hydroxide are secured, while preventing excessive lithium hydroxide such that the electrical conductivity of the alkaline electrolyte decreases (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Passaniti renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Passaniti does not explicitly teach that polyalkylene glycol is present in the alkaline electrolyte in an amount of 0.1 to 8% by mass, such a content would have been obvious since Meckfessel Jones teaches that PEG is included in the electrolyte in a range of 5 wt% or less [0087]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included 5 wt% or less of PEG in the electrolyte solution of modified Passaniti with a reasonable expectation that such a concentration of PEG would result in a successful electrolyte solution. This range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected any portion of the ranges recited in the prior art, including those which overlap with the instant application with a reasonable expectation that such a content of PEG would result in a successful alkaline electrolyte (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passaniti et al. (US-5389469-A) in view of Zhou et al. (US-20130071744-A1) as evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich (see attached NPL) and in view Huang et al. (US-20080241682-A1) and as evidenced by Takeuchi (US-5807645-A) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Eylem et al. (US-20080008937-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Passaniti renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that graphite particles are added into the cathode mixture (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Passaniti also discloses that the silver oxide material is reacted with bismuth to form a bismuth/AgO mixture (Col. 6, Equations 1-3; Col. 9, Table 3), including both AgBiO3 and AgBiO2 (Col. 6, lines 59-63). Passaniti does not teach the average particle size of the graphite particles.
Eylem teaches an alkaline battery including bismuth [0004-0006]. The cathode can include silver oxide in addition to bismuth (e.g. AgBiO3: [0060]) and the anode can contain zinc [0016, 0019]. The cathode can further be selected to contain carbon black and/or graphite to enhance bulk electrical conductivity [0058, 0074]. Eylem teaches that the oxidation of graphite can decrease bulk cathode conductivity and form carbon dioxide, which can react with the alkaline electrolyte, thereby decreasing the ion conductivity of the electrolyte and degrading cell performance [0074]. In order to circumvent these issues, oxidation-resistant graphite particles, with a particle size from about 2 to 50 µm, can be used [0074-0075]. A larger graphite particle size typically has a lower surface area and is therefore more resistant to oxidation [0075]. However, the graphite particles must also be sufficiently small so as to form a conductive network inside the cathode [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the size of the graphite particles, including selecting a size of 2 to 7 µm (which is within the claimed range of 1 to 7 µm), with a reasonable expectation that such a particle size would result in a successful balance between preventing oxidation of the graphite particles while maintaining a conductive network to enhance bulk cathode conductivity (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the inclusion of oxides particles selected from the group consisting of Si, Zr, Ti, and Al in the silver oxide positive electrode mixture results in improved charge-discharge cycle characteristics, and Applicant submits that this feature is not taught by the cited references (Remarks, Pg. 9 of 12). Applicant notes that Passaniti does not disclose an oxide of Si, Zr, Ti and Al (Remarks, Pg. 9 of 12). Applicant further argues that although Zhou teaches stabilizing agents such as SiO2, ZrO2, TiO2 and Al2O3, Zhou describes the stabilizing agents as p-type semiconductors and/or n-type semiconductors, and therefore Zhou does not teach “insulating particles” (Remarks, Pg. 9 of 12).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Zhou teaches doped materials (e.g. ZnO doped with Al2O3; [0117]), Zhou also teaches various oxide materials (e.g. SiO2, ZrO2) as alternatives to the p- or n-type semiconductors. See [0115] and [0117], reproduced below. See also Examples 3 and 4 [0163-0174] and Tables 1 and 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
98
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the synthetic conditions taught by Zhou do not appear to modify SiO2 or ZrO2 to form p- or n-type semiconductors. For instance, there is no indication the synthetic conditions described in [0163-0168] incorporate Group V elements or Group III elements into the SiO2 particles taught by Zhou. The addition of donor atoms (Group V) or acceptor atoms (Group III) appear to be necessary to achieve a n-type or p-type doped Si material, as evidenced by BenchChem Technical Support Team (see attached NPL). Therefore, although the Examiner acknowledges that the stabilizing agent can be a n-type or p-type semiconductor (e.g. ZnO doped with Al2O3), Zhou does not appear to require such a semiconductor material.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of persuasive evidence that the SiO2 or ZrO2 materials of Zhou are indeed p-type or n-type semiconductors, the Examiner notes that, absent a special definition provided in the instant specification, “insulating” can be interpreted in various ways, including as electrically insulating or thermally insulating, as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. The oxide materials taught by Zhou are understood to inherently be somewhat thermally insulating and, absent a requisite degree of “insulating”, somewhat insulating oxide particles read on “insulating particles”.
The Examiner notes that Zhou teaches that the addition of stabilizing agents results in excellent cycle life of the alkaline secondary battery and more desirable discharge characteristic and material properties than a cathode material lacking a stabilizing agent [0219]. This advantage appears substantially similar to the alleged advantage asserted by the Applicant.
Applicant has argued that Passaniti discloses CaO or MgO as cost-reduction additives, not the claimed Si, Zr, Ti or Al oxide materials (Remarks, Pg. 10 of 12).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but notes that Sigma-Aldrich evidences that SiO2 and ZrO2 are also cost-reducing materials (see rejection of Claims 1 and 23, above; see also attached NPL).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights