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 Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 6/5/26.
The applicant submits that the previous rejection is improper as Kuroiwa does not teach each and every limitation of claim 1 and 31. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the coating laying layer disposed on the separator base is not a reasonable interpretation of the barrier layer of claim 1 as it is part of the separator and has low electrolyte retention. Regarding claim 31, the applicant argues that the PVA of Kuroiwa is hot water soluble but not cold water soluble.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The interpretation of Kuroiwa which relies on the coating layer applied to the base layer of the separator to teach the barrier layer is a reasonable interpretation of the barrier layer consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. The base layer of the separator can reasonably be interpreted as a separator while the coating layer can reasonably be interpreted as the barrier layer. This is consistent with the plain meaning in the prior art. This is further indicated by the instant application’s disclosure wherein the barrier layer is incorporated into a multilayer laminated separator structure [claim 9] wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that in the multilayer structure the separator layers could be considered “base layers”.
Separately, the teachings of Kuroiwa which indicates a preference for a hot water solution of PVA does not limit the disclosure from including an embodiment wherein the PVA is dissolved in a cold-water solution. Kuroiwa teaches that PVA is highly soluble in hot water not that PVA is insoluble in cold water. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Then, the solubility of PVA in cold water is an inherent property of PVA which is implied by the teaching of highly soluble in water.
Similarly, the teachings of Kuroiwa which indicate low electrolyte retention does not mean no electrolyte retention. Then, even in the instance in which retention is low there is still a reservoir of elecytolyte present which can be reasonably relied upon to teach the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) by Kuroiwa, US20180358595A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kuroiwa teaches an alkaline battery [0001] comprising:
an anode; a cathode; a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode [0002];
a barrier layer disposed between the anode and the cathode (coating solution formed on separator base)[0047],
wherein the barrier layer is at least one of: an organic polymer film (alkali resistant resin film layer)[0030][0064] wherein the barrier layer is in contact with a surface of the anode or the cathode (formed on the separator between anode and cathode)[0052][0137]; and an electrolyte in fluid communication with the anode, the cathode, and the separator,
wherein the barrier layer comprises an organic water soluble material (highly soluble PVA)[0003][0030] that is configured to provide a reservoir of the electrolyte at the surface and is in contact with the surface of the anode or the cathode (alkaline resistant layer hold electrolyte)[0062].
Regarding claim 2, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1, wherein the organic polymer film comprises at least one of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl alcohol [0030].
Regarding claim 6, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1, wherein the barrier layer comprises at least one layer between the anode and the cathode (formed on one or both side of the separator between anode and cathode)[0052][0137].
Regarding claim 9, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1, wherein the battery comprises a plurality of layers of the separator (at least one layer)[0102], and wherein the barrier layer is laminated with the plurality of layers of the separator (apply coating solution to separator)[0047] on the anode or the cathode (separator between electrodes).
Regarding claim 10, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 9, wherein the separator is a film fabricated from nylon, polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene polyvinyl alcohol, cellulose [0078]
Regarding claim 30, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1, wherein the barrier layer comprises a plurality of polyvinyl alcohol layers around the anode or the cathode (coating applied on one or both sides)[0052].
Regarding claim 31, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1, wherein the organic polymer film comprises a cold water soluble polyvinyl alcohol film (non-crosslinked PVA)[0003][0030].
Regarding claim 32, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1, wherein the organic polymer film comprises a hot water soluble polyvinyl alcohol film (hot water soluble)[0003].
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.
Claims 3 – 4, 7, and 11 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Kuroiwa, US20180358595A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa, US20150364789A1.
Regarding claim 3, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1.
Kuroiwa does not teach wherein the inorganic polymer layer comprises at least one of ceramic films including but not limited to Zeolites, Nasicons, Lithicons, or any combination thereof.
Ogawa teaches an alkaline battery [0004] wherein a barrier layer (protection member)[0112][0113][0114] having a thickness of 0.1 μm – 1 mm and comprising inorganic materials is disposed adjacent an electrode [fig. 1][fig. 6] wherein the inorganic material [0045] is at least one of LDH, hydroxides [0047], or ceramics [0179]. Further, Ogawa teaches the protected anode prevents dendrite growth while maintaining good performance [0001]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the features of the protective layer of Ogawa with the battery of Kuroiwa to improve safety and performance.
Regarding claim 4, the alkaline battery of claim 1.
Kuroiwa does not teach wherein the inorganic polymer layer comprises at least one of water-insoluble metal hydroxides, metal layered double hydroxides, metal oxides, or any combination thereof.
Ogawa teaches an alkaline battery [0004] wherein a barrier layer (protection member)[0112][0113][0114] having a thickness of 0.1 μm – 1 mm and comprising inorganic materials is disposed adjacent an electrode [fig. 1][fig. 6] wherein the inorganic material [0045] is at least one of LDH, hydroxides [0047], or ceramics [0179]. Further, Ogawa teaches the protected anode prevents dendrite growth while maintaining good performance [0001]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the features of the protective layer of Ogawa with the battery of Kuroiwa to improve safety and performance.
Regarding claim 7, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1.
Kuroiwa does not teach wherein the barrier layer has a thickness between 1 um to 1mm.
Ogawa teaches an alkaline battery [0004] wherein a barrier layer (protection member)[0112][0113][0114] having a thickness of 0.1 μm – 1 mm and comprising inorganic materials is disposed adjacent an electrode [fig. 1][fig. 6] wherein the inorganic material [0045] is at least one of LDH, hydroxides [0047], or ceramics [0179]. Further, Ogawa teaches the protected anode prevents dendrite growth while maintaining good performance [0001]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the features of the protective layer of Ogawa with the battery of Kuroiwa to improve safety and performance.
Regarding claim 11, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1.
Kuroiwa does not teach wherein the battery is a prismatic battery or a cylindrical battery.
Ogawa teaches an alkaline battery [0004] comprising a barrier layer (protection member)[0112][0113][0114] wherein the battery is a prismatic battery or a cylindrical battery [0261].
Prismatic batteries and cylindrical batteries are known battery shapes in the art. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the shapes of batteries as shown in Ogawa into the battery of Kuroiwa as an obvious choice.
Regarding claim 12, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1.
Kuroiwa does not teach wherein the anode comprises a pasted porous Zn electrode, a Zn metal foil, a Zn mesh, or a perforated Zn metal foil.
Ogawa teaches an alkaline battery [0004] comprising a barrier layer (protection member)[0112][0113][0114] wherein the anode comprises a Zn metal foil, a Zn mesh, or a perforated Zn metal foil [0148]. Further, Ogawa teaches that these are suitable electrode materials for use in alkaline cells [0148]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the electrode materials of Ogawa into the battery of Kuroiwa as a simple substitution of known parts.
Regarding claim 13, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1.
Kuroiwa does not teach wherein the cathode comprises a manganese dioxide electrode, a nickel oxyhydroxide electrode, a silver oxide electrode, or an air electrode.
Ogawa teaches an alkaline battery [0004] comprising a barrier layer (protection member)[0112][0113][0114] wherein the cathode comprises a nickel oxyhydroxide electrode, a silver oxide electrode, or an air electrode [0003][0127]. Further, Ogawa teaches that these are suitable electrode materials for use in alkaline cells [0127]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the electrode materials of Ogawa into the battery of Kuroiwa as a simple substitution of known parts.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Kuroiwa, US20180358595A1.
Regarding claim 5, the alkaline battery of claim 1.
Kuroiwa does not teach wherein the barrier layer comprises a freestanding film in the battery.
However, this is considered to be a product by process limitation as it is in regard to the formation of the barrier layer before assembly with the remaining battery components. As Steffensen teaches all the claimed structural components the claim is considered to be taught by the prior art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Kuroiwa, US20180358595A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, US20190393474A1.
Regarding claim 8, Kuroiwa teaches the alkaline battery of claim 1,
Where the battier layer is configured to protect the alkaline battery from electrical short circuit [0002]; provide the reservoir of the electrolyte for easy electrolyte accessibility [0062]; and suppress the transport of zincate ions (prevent dendrites)[0139].
Kuroiwa does not teach wherein the barrier layer is configured to: cover an exposed current collector.
Lee teaches a secondary battery comprising a cathode (121), anode (123), and a separator (122) disposed therebetween [fig. 5B] wherein the separator extends to cover an exposed current collector [fig. 5B] wherein this configuration prevents a short-circuit from occurring [0035]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the separator shape of Lee into the battery of Kuroiwa to prevent short-circuiting.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights