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
In response to the amendment received November 20, 2025:
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are pending. Claims 4-5 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendments. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (WO 2018/163485A), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement, in view of Brys et al. (US 6,251,539). The U.S. version of Takahashi et al. (US 2020/0014039), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement, is used as the English machine translation and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi et al. teaches an alkaline dry cell (i.e. an alkaline dry battery) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte solution containing an alkaline aqueous solution (i.e. alkaline electrolyte) contained in the positive electrode, the negative electrode and the separator (Para. [0012]) (i.e. retained in the positive electrode, negative electrode and the separator), the negative electrode contains a negative electrode active material containing zinc (Para. [0013]) (i.e. the negative electrode including a negative electrode active material containing zinc) with an average particle size D50 of 130 µm (Para. [0070]) (i.e. an average particle diameter D50z of the negative electrode active material containing zinc is 130 µm) and an additive B containing terephthalic acid (i.e. and an additive, the additive including a phthalic acid) (Para. [0024]).
Takahashi et al. does not teach the additive including tin powder.
However, Brys et al. teaches an alkaline cell comprising zinc anode active material (col. 1, lines 4-3) wherein the anode material includes electrically conductive powders (col . 2, lines 50-53) (i.e. an alkaline dry battery comprising a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material containing zinc and an additive) wherein the more preferable powder additive is tin powder (col. 3, lines 14-16) (i.e. the additive including tin powder) wherein the average particle thickness/size is between about 10 to 25 microns (i.e. an average particle diameter of the tin powder is about 10 to 25 µm) (col. 3, lines 55-59).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Takahashi et al. to incorporate the teaching of tin powder as an additive as it has the ability to improve the cell’s performance under high power discharge without increasing gassing within the cell to a level that interferes with the cell’s overall utility and service life (col. 3, lines 22-26). Thus, the modified alkaline dry battery of Takahashi et al. as modified by Brys et al. would have ratio of an average particle diameter D50s to an average particle diameter D50z of 10/130 to 25/130 or 0.08 to 0.19 and thus, at the very least, overlapping with the claimed range of D50s/D50z < 0.1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi et al. as modified by Brys et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Takahashi et al. does not teach the tin powder additive.
However, Brys et al. teaches an alkaline cell comprising zinc anode active material (col. 1, lines 4-3) wherein the anode material includes electrically conductive powders (col . 2, lines 50-53) (i.e. an alkaline dry battery comprising a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material containing zinc and an additive) wherein the more preferable powder additive is tin powder (col. 3, lines 14-16) (i.e. the additive including tin powder) and the metal powder (i.e. tin powder) is added in an amount of between about 0.5 and 2.0 percent by weight of the total anode (col. 3, lines 3-8) and the anode material zinc alloy powder (i.e. negative electrode active material) comprises 62 to 69 wt% of the total anode (col. 4, lines 46-47) and thus teaches the tin powder is retained in the negative electrode in an amount overlapping with the claimed range, as the tin powder may be added in an amount of 0.5 percent by weight of the total anode and the anode material may be 69 wt% thereby having the tin powder retained in an amount of 0.7 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Takahashi to incorporate the teaching of the amount of tin powder as taught by Brys et al., as it would have the ability to improve the cell’s performance under high power discharge without increasing gassing within the cell to a level that interferes with the cell’s overall utility and service life (col. 3, lines 22-26).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi et al. as modified by Brys et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Takahashi et al. further teaches the amount of additive B comprising terephthalic acid is contained in the negative electrode from 0.05 to 0.5 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material (Para. [0024]) (i.e. wherein the phthalic acid is retained in the negative electrode in an amount within the claimed range of 0.05 parts by mass or more and 0.5 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahashi et al. as modified by Brys et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Takahashi et al. further teaches the negative electrode an additive B containing terephthalic acid (i.e. wherein the phthalic acid includes terephthalic acid) (Para. [0024]).
Regarding Claim 7, Takahashi et al. as modified by Brys et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Takahashi et al. further teaches the amount of additive B comprising terephthalic acid is contained in the negative electrode from 0.05 to 0.5 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material (Para. [0024]) (i.e. wherein the mass of phthalic acid is retained in the negative electrode in an amount within the claimed range of 0.05 parts by mass or more and 0.5 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material).
Takahashi et al. does not teach the tin powder additive.
However, Brys et al. teaches an alkaline cell comprising zinc anode active material (col. 1, lines 4-3) wherein the anode material includes electrically conductive powders (col . 2, lines 50-53) (i.e. an alkaline dry battery comprising a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material containing zinc and an additive) wherein the more preferable powder additive is tin powder (col. 3, lines 14-16) (i.e. the additive including tin powder) and the metal powder (i.e. tin powder) is added in an amount of between about 0.5 and 2.0 percent by weight of the total anode (col. 3, lines 3-8) and the anode material zinc alloy powder (i.e. negative electrode active material) comprises 62 to 69 wt% of the total anode (col. 4, lines 46-47) and thus teaches the tin powder is retained in the negative electrode in an amount overlapping with the claimed range, as the tin powder may be added in an amount an amount of 0.01 to 3.2 (0.5/69 to 2.0/62) parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Takahashi to incorporate the teaching of the amount of tin powder as taught by Brys et al., as it would have the ability to improve the cell’s performance under high power discharge without increasing gassing within the cell to a level that interferes with the cell’s overall utility and service life (col. 3, lines 22-26). Thus, the natural result of the combination would provide a Mac (a mass of phthalic acid) of 0.05 to 0.5 parts by mass and a Ms (mass of the tin powder) of 0.01 to 3.2 parts by mass, resulting in a ratio (Mac/Ms) satisfying a ratio (Mac/Ms) of a mass of terephthalic (i.e. phthalic) acid 0.001 to 50, overlapping with the claimed range of 0.05 < Mac/Ms <10. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See also MPEP §2112(IV).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (WO 2018/163485A) in view of Brys et al. (US 6,251,539) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokuda et al. (US 6,265,105).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahashi et al. as modified by Brys et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Takahashi et al. does not teach a ratio (Mk/Ms) of a mass of KOH in the alkaline dry battery to a mass of the tin powder in the negative electrode (Ms) satisfies 20 < Mk/Ms < 580.
However, Tokuda et al. teaches an alkaline battery (col. 4, lines 10-17) comprising a potassium hydroxide content (KOH) of 0.47 g (col. 5, lines 62 – col. 6, line 1) and a negative active zinc containing an additive of tin of 0.005-0.5 mass% (col. 3, lines 45-62) and the total zinc alloy powder amount used in the negative electrode is about 100 g (col 16, lines 1- col. 1, line 16 and table 9). Thus, at the very least, teaches an overlapping range with the claimed ratio Mk/Ms as, for example, 0.005 mass% tin would result in a ratio of 0.47/0.005 = 94.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of mass of KOH in the alkaline battery to the mass of the tin powder to incorporate the teaching of Tokuda et al., as such a ratio would provide a sufficient level of discharge and suppresses hydrogen gas evolution (col. 3, lines 45-62) and exhibit excellent cycle characteristics (col. 9, lines 17-20). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art references Takahashi and Brys aim to enhance discharge performance and do not suggest a problem of leakage when an alkaline dry battery is charged by misuse which is the object of the present invention and Brys is not recognizing that tin powder acts to effectively suppress gas generation when the battery is charged by misuse and as such, the present application discloses unexpected results as the presence of a property not possessed by the prior art is evidence of nonobviousness.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the present invention obtains results not contemplated by the prior art, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, applicant cites para. [0022-0023] in the instant specification which teach adding tin powder with zinc negative electrode active material cause suppression of hydrogen generation, which causes leakage (instant specification para. [0004]). Brys et al. also teaches adding tin powder as an additive to zinc negative electrode active material as it causes less gassing (i.e. suppressing gassing) compared to other additives (col. 3, lines 14-26). Thus, effectively suppressing gas generation is an expected beneficial result. Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." See MPEP 716.02(c)(II). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 8 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior 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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729