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
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to claim 7 (see Remarks filed 6/25/2025 on p.6-9), this is not found to be persuasive because the combination of Iwata and CN106784611B envisages an overlapping range of the depth and diameter of the pits with the claimed range (CN106784611B discloses a depth of the pits is 500 nm to 50 micrometers and the diameter is 200 nanometers to 10 micrometers (see P2)) and, thus, 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 overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
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.
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata et al. (US 2022/0059888A1) in view of CN106784611B, refer to English translation.
Regarding claim 7, Iwata discloses a metal-air battery (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
a metal negative electrode (metal anode [0029]);
a positive electrode on the metal negative electrode (cathode [0029]); and
a solid electrolyte between the metal negative electrode and the positive electrode (gel electrolyte [0029]),
wherein the solid electrolyte includes a network formed by providing a plurality of base complex fibers combined with cellulose and chitosan (electrolyte including at least one of…polysaccharide, for example, cellulose, chitosan, and further including a separator made of fiber [0053]-[0059]), and
wherein the positive electrode includes a compound of a transition metal, phosphorus, and a chalcogen element (air electrode includes, for example, phosphorus-doped molybdenum sulfide [0031]).
However, Iwata does not disclose a metal negative electrode having a plurality of grooves on a surface thereof, wherein a peak value corresponding to a (101) crystal plane in the metal negative electrode is (a) higher than peak values corresponding to other crystal planes in the metal negative electrode, and (b) controlled by a diameter and a depth of the plurality of grooves.
Further regarding claim 7 reciting “a peak value corresponding to a (101) crystal plane in the metal negative electrode is (a) higher than peak values corresponding to other crystal planes in the metal negative electrode, and (b) controlled by a diameter and a depth of the plurality of grooves”, the instant application discloses a peak value of the (101) crystal plane higher than peak values of other crystal planes can be obtained by controlling the depth and diameter of a groove (see paragraphs [0014], [0101]-[0105] of the published specification of the instant application). Fig. 15-17 of the instant specification further discloses a peak value of the (101) crystal plane being highest observed at a depth of 100 nm to 3,000 nm and diameter of 100 nm to 5,000 nm. The examiner further notes that the instant application does not disclose whether a peak value of the (101) crystal plane is higher or lower than other peak values outside of their preferred embodiment.
CN106784611B discloses an electrode with pit patterns for various metal-air batteries including zinc-air battery (see Title, Abstract, P1), wherein the pits effectively prevent metal dendrites from depositing outside the pit and provide a buffer space for deformation during metal alloying, which offer improved safety performance and cycle life of the battery (see P4). CN106784611B further discloses a depth of the pits is 500 nm to 50 micrometers and the diameter is 200 nanometers to 10 micrometers (see P2) which overlaps with the depth and diameter disclosed in the instant application.
Iwata and CN106784611B are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metal-air batteries.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a pit pattern in the electrode of Iwata because CN106784611B teaches improved safety performance and cycle life of the battery. Since the combination envisages an overlapping range of the depth and diameter of the pits with 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 the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 8, modified Iwata discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Iwata further discloses the positive electrode includes a compound of copper, phosphorus, and sulfur (air electrode includes, for example, phosphorus-doped molybdenum sulfide and material also constituted of…Cu [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Iwata discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Iwata further discloses the metal negative electrode and the solid electrolyte face each other ([0029], Fig. 1-8).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata et al. (US 2022/0059888A1) in view of CN106784611B, refer to English translation, as applied to claims 7-9 above, and further in view of Zhi et al. (US 2019/0067737A1).
Regarding 10, modified Iwata discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, modified Iwata does not disclose an interphase layer in contact with the solid electrolyte is provided on a surface of the metal negative electrode, and the interphase layer comprises a first compound having fluorine and a metal element contained in the metal negative electrode, and a second compound having sulfur and a metal element contained in the metal negative electrode.
Zhi discloses Zn-air batteries in which quasi-SEI are formed during initial cycles which immobilize and protect the anode from dendrites (see Title, Abstract, [0069], [0087], [0097]-[0100]).
Modified Iwata and Zhi are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely metal-air batteries.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a quasi-SEI on the surface of the anode in Iwata because Zhi teaches improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 11, modified Iwata discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 11 reciting method steps (“a ratio of the first compound to the second compound increases on the interphase layer as charging and discharging are performed”), product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata et al. (US 2022/0059888A1) in view of CN106784611B, refer to English translation, as applied to claims 7-9 above, and further in view of Baik et al. (US 2019/0181520A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Iwata discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Iwata further discloses the battery can be produced in a conventional shape including a coin shape, a cylindrical shape, or a laminate form ([0140]), but does not expressly disclose the metal-air battery is provided in a form of a pouch cell.
Baik discloses a metal air battery having an outer body in the form of a pouch or pocket (Title, Abstract, [0061]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 9/17/2025