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
The amendments filed 7/20/2026 have been entered. Claims 51 is amended, Claims 25-27, 31-33, 35-36, 38, and 46 are cancelled, and Claims 63-69 are new.
Support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 0067, 0080, 0107, and 0114 of the instant specification.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 20, 23, 51, 53-54, and 59-69 are pending; Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 20, and 23 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to amended Claim 1 and Lockett have been fully considered and are persuasive: Lockett is silent as to the flexibility of the electrodes. Although Lockett uses the same printing method as the present invention to form the electrodes (Lockett: 0124, 0126-0145; instant specification: 00114-00119) and it has been held that, "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), the difference in fluoropolymer concentration in the AgO electrodes (Lockett: 0141; instant specification: 00117) would mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect both the electrodes of Lockett to have the same properties as the electrodes of the present invention.
Applicant's arguments regarding the Huang-Mendelsohn combination and the Adamson-Huang combination, see pages 8 and 9, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although modified Huang and modified Adamson do not disclose the exact elastic properties of the electrodes, they disclose that the electrodes are flexible enough that they may be spirally wound in a jelly-roll configuration (Huang: 0070; Adamson: 0058). Thus, as the electrodes of modified Huang and modified Adamson are flexible and capable of bending in on themselves, one of ordinary skill in the art would be expect that the electrodes would be capable of bending in on themselves to some degree such that cracks do not form. This would necessarily have a diameter of at least 1 cm (any electrode capable of bending in on themselves without cracking with a diameter less than 1 cm would also be capable of doing so would a diameter of more than 1 cm).
Applicant’s arguments regarding Pei, see page 7, have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Pei only discloses the calculated elastic properties of crystalline PVDF and would therefore not be applicable to the elasticity of a copolymer containing PVDF or a layer comprising the copolymer: the elasticity of the copolymer would further dependent on the composition and relative quantities of the monomers and the elasticity of the layer would be influenced by the properties of the Zn or AgO particles. However, original Claim 51 does not specify the degree of elasticity of the composite material. Although the total elasticity of the layer would also depend on the factors disclosed by the Applicant, the layer comprising PVDF as a component would necessarily have some elasticity and would read on original Claim 51.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 68 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not appear to support the anode or cathode having minimum thicknesses of 50 µm and maximum thicknesses of 1000 µm: based on Fig. 26 and paragraph 0095 of the instant specification, the cathode appears to have a thickness between 75 µm (1 layer) and 500 µm (8 layers) and the anode appears to have a thickness between 120 µm (1 layer) and 800 µm (8 layers).
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.
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20110262803 A1) in view of Mendelsohn (US 2872362 A) and as evidenced by Pei (Elastic properties of poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) crystals: A density functional theory study).
Regarding Claim 51, Huang teaches a battery (Title) comprising:
An anode, comprising a first layer of a first elastic composite material including a plurality of Zn particles (0063 – Zn active material; 0123 – Zn powder) and a first fluorine-containing copolymer confining the plurality of Zn particles within the first layer (0064, 0126 – Example 1: PVDF-co-HFP binder).
A cathode, comprising a second layer of a second elastic composite material including a plurality of AgO particles (Abstract, 0140 – PbAc coated AgO powder) and a second fluorine-containing copolymer confining the plurality of Zn particles within the second layer (0141 – Example 2: PVDF-co-HFP binder),
Wherein the first fluorine-containing copolymer and the second fluorine-containing copolymer are the same fluorine-containing polymer and includes a combination of ethylene monomers fluorinated with 4 fluorine atoms and propylene monomers fluorinated with 6 fluorine atoms (0126, 0141 – PVDF-co-HFP binder).
Polyvinylidene fluoride is known to have elastic properties (Pei: Title) meaning that a layer comprising polyvinylidene fluoride would at least have some elasticity.
Huang teaches that the electrolyte is disposed between the anode and the cathode and comprises aqueous NaOH or KOH mixed with polymers (Fig. 1, 0096, 0110) but does not teach that it is a gel or hydrogel.
Mendelsohn teaches that batteries containing alkaline electrolytes (Col. 1, line 16), such as silver-zinc batteries with a potassium hydroxide (KOH) electrolyte (Col. 1, lines 37-44), can have improved charge storage, shelf-life, and reduced loss of electrolyte through leakage when a gelling agent is added to the electrolyte (Col. 1 lines 18-25).
Huang and Mendelsohn are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely silver-zinc batteries.
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 modified the electrolyte of Huang to comprise a gelling agent as taught by Mendelsohn in order to provide improved charge storage, shelf-life, and reduced loss of electrolyte through leakage.
Adding the gelling agent to the aqueous potassium hydroxide would result in the electrolyte layer being viewed as a hydrogel electrolyte layer.
As the electrodes of modified Huang are flexible and capable of bending in on themselves (Huang: 0070 – the electrodes can be spirally wound in a jelly-roll configuration), one of ordinary skill in the art would be expect that the electrodes would be capable of bending in on themselves to some degree such that cracks do not form. This would necessarily have a diameter of at least 1 cm (any electrode capable of bending in on themselves without cracking with a diameter less than 1 cm would also be capable of doing so would a diameter of more than 1 cm).
Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Mendelsohn as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Kitamura (US 6461768 B1).
Regarding Claim 53, modified Huang teaches the battery of Claim 51. Modified Huang teaches that Bi2O3 can be used in the anode (0125) but does not teach that the Zn particles are coated with a Bi2O3 powder.
Kitamura teaches that zinc particles for use in a negative electrode can be coated with bismuth oxide (Bi2O3) to reduce hydrogen gas evolution in an alkaline battery.
Kitamura is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the claimed invention, namely alkaline batteries containing zinc.
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 modified the zinc particles of modified Huang by coating them with bismuth oxide as taught by Kitamura in order to reduce hydrogen gas evolution.
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Mendelsohn as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Melzer (US 20030203281 A1).
Regarding Claim 63, modified Huang teaches the battery of Claim 51. Huang does not disclose the particle size of the Zn.
Melzer teaches zinc powder suitable for use in zinc/silver oxide cells (0030). The zinc may have a diameter between 40 and 140 µm (Claim 1), which would overlap the claimed range of 50 µm to 100 µm.
Melzer is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely electrodes comprising zinc.
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 modified the particle size of the Zn of modified Huang to be the size taught by Melzer as it is a known size for zinc in a zinc/silver oxide cell and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed size ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Mendelsohn as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Adamson `912 (US 20110286912 A1).
Regarding Claim 64, modified Huang teaches the battery of Claim 51. Huang teaches that the AgO particles are coated with lead (0057) but does not teach that the lead is in the form of lead oxide (0140 – PbAc is used as the coating).
Adamson `912 teaches that a silver oxide active material can be coated with lead oxide (0054)
Adamsom`912 is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely silver oxide cathodes.
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 substituted the PbAc of modified Huang for lead oxide as it is a known form of lead coating on silver oxide and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B).
Claim(s) 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Mendelsohn as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 20210126290 A1).
Regarding Claim 65, modified Huang teaches the battery of Claim 51. Modified Huang does not teach that the second elastic composite material comprises carbon black.
Inoue teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode containing silver oxide and a negative electrode comprising zinc particles (Abstract). The positive electrode comprises additives in the form of inorganic particles, graphite, and carbon black (Abstract). The additives allow for improved charging-discharging cycle characteristics (0044). In particular, the carbon black reduces electrical resistance and improves reaction efficiency during charging (0056).
Inoue is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries comprising silver oxide and zinc.
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 modified the second composite material layer of modified Huang to comprise the additives of Inoue, which include carbon black, to improve the charge-discharge cycle characteristics.
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Mendelsohn as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Yonehara (US 20140205909 A1).
Regarding Claim 67, modified Huang teaches the battery of Claim 51. Huang does not teach that the electrolyte further comprises LiOH and Ca(OH)2.
Yonehara teaches zinc electrodes for batteries such as silver-zinc batteries (Abstract, 0002, 0141). The electrolyte may be an aqueous electrolyte comprising potassium hydroxide (0151). The electrolyte may also include additives such as lithium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide improve the charge and discharge characteristics and suppress corrosion (0150). Two or more additives may be used (0152).
Yonehara is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries comprising zinc.
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 modified the electrolyte of modified Huang to comprise the additives of Yonehara in order to improve the charge-discharge characteristics and suppress corrosion.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected lithium hydroxide (LiOH) and calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) as the additives as Yonehara teaches them as possible additives for the electrolyte and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Claim(s) 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Mendelsohn as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Lockett (US 20180034067 A1).
Regarding Claim 68, modified Huang teaches the battery of Claim 51. Modified Huang does not disclose the thickness of the electrodes.
Lockett teaches a battery comprising a silver oxide cathode (Abstract) and a zinc anode (0132). The electrodes may each have a thickness between about 0.5 µm and 1000 µm (0099).
Lockett is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries comprising silver oxide.
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 modified the electrodes of modified Huang to have the thickness taught by Lockett as it is a known thickness for electrodes and it has been held that the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed thickness ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 51, 54, 59, 60, and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson (WO 2008039417 A1) in view of Huang (US 20110262803 A1) and as evidenced by Pei (Elastic properties of poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) crystals: A density functional theory study).
Regarding Claim 51, Adamson teaches a zinc-silver oxide battery (Abstract) comprising an anode comprising zinc, a cathode comprising silver oxide, and an electrolyte comprising aqueous potassium hydroxide and a gelling agent (0065-0066). The electrolyte is between the anode and cathode (0003) and can be viewed as a layer of a hydrogel electrolyte disposed between the anode and the cathode.
Adamson does not teach that the anode comprises a first layer of a first elastic composite material including a plurality of Zn particles and a first fluorine-containing copolymer confining the plurality of Zn particles within the first layer or that the cathode comprises a second layer of a second elastic composite material including a plurality of AgO particles and a second fluorine-incorporating/containing copolymer confining the plurality of AgO particles within the second layer, wherein the first and second fluorine-containing copolymers are the same fluorine-containing polymer.
Huang teaches a zinc-silver oxide battery (Fig. 1). The anode comprises a first layer of a first elastic composite material including a plurality of Zn particles (0063 – Zn active material; 0123 – Zn powder) and a first fluorine-containing copolymer confining the plurality of Zn particles within the first layer (0064, 0126 – Example 1: PVDF-co-HFP binder). The cathode comprises a second layer of a second elastic composite material including a plurality of AgO particles (Abstract, 0140 – PbAc coated AgO powder) and a second fluorine-containing copolymer confining the plurality of Zn particles within the second layer (0141 – Example 2: PVDF-co-HFP binder). The first fluorine-containing copolymer and the second fluorine-containing copolymer are the same fluorine-containing polymer (0126, 0141 – PVDF-co-HFP binder). Polyvinylidene fluoride is known to have elastic properties (Pei: Title) meaning that a layer comprising polyvinylidene fluoride would at least have some elasticity. Huang teaches that the electrodes are free of one or more problems suffered by traditional binders like PTFE and CMC (0005 – traditional binders such as PTFE and CMC present manufacturing problems or have physical properties that limit the efficiency of electrochemical cells, and thus, limiting the utility, cycle life, or shelf life of batteries; 0007 – the present invention provides improved electrodes that are free of one or more of the abovementioned problems suffered by traditional binders). PVDF-co-HFP would be considered a fluorine-containing copolymer including a combination of ethylene monomers fluorinated with 4 fluorine atoms and propylene monomers fluorinated with 6 fluorine atoms.
Adamson and Huang are considered analogous as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely zinc-silver oxide batteries.
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 modified the electrodes of Adamson to be the electrodes of Huang as they are free of problems suffered by traditional binders.
As the electrodes of modified Adamson are flexible and capable of bending in on themselves (Adamson: 0058 – the electrodes can be spirally wound in a jelly-roll configuration), one of ordinary skill in the art would be expect that the electrodes would be capable of bending in on themselves to some degree such that cracks do not form. This would necessarily have a diameter of at least 1 cm (any electrode capable of bending in on themselves without cracking with a diameter less than 1 cm would also be capable of doing so would a diameter of more than 1 cm).
Regarding Claims 54 and 60, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 51. Adamson teaches an embodiment where the battery comprises multiple separators (Fig. 7), one of which contacts the anode (parts 510 and 570) and one of which contacts the cathode (parts 520 and 560). As the electrolyte is interposed between and in contact with the anode and cathode (0003), the electrolyte would be present in all the separators. Thus, one or more of the separator and electrolyte layers (parts 530, 540, and 550) can be viewed as the hydrogel electrolyte layer and the separator 560 can be viewed as a layer of a first separator material disposed between the anode and the layer of the hydrogel electrolyte (Claim 54) and the separator 570 can be viewed as a layer of a second separator material disposed between the cathode of the layer of the hydrogel electrolyte (Claim 60).
Regarding Claim 59, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 54. Adamson teaches that the separators can comprise a metal oxide filler such as titanium oxide (0047, 0048).
Regarding Claim 62, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 51. Adamson teaches that hydrogel can comprise potassium hydroxide and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) as a gelling agent (0065).
Although modified Adamson does not provide a specific embodiment where PVA is added as a gelling agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected PVA as a gelling agent as Adamson teaches it as a possible gelling agent and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson and Huang as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Kitamura (US 6461768 B1).
Regarding Claim 53, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 51. Modified Adamson does not teach that the Zn particles are boated with a Bi2O3 powder.
Kitamura teaches that zinc particles for use in a negative electrode can be coated with bismuth oxide (Bi2O3) to reduce hydrogen gas evolution in an alkaline battery.
Kitamura is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the claimed invention, namely alkaline batteries containing zinc.
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 modified the zinc particles of modified Adamson by coating them with bismuth oxide as taught by Kitamura in order to reduce hydrogen gas evolution.
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson and Huang as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Balters (US 4209578 A).
Regarding Claim 61, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 60. Modified Adamson does not teach that the second separator material includes cellulose.
Balters teaches a cell with an alkaline electrolyte (Title), a cathode comprising silver oxide (both AgO and Ag2O) (Col. 3, lines 22-26), and an anode comprising zinc (Col. 3, lines 5 and 28). The separator may be made from regenerated cellulose (Col. 3, lines 36-38).
Balters is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely zinc-silver oxide batteries.
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 substituted at least the second separator material of modified Adamson with the cellulose of Balters as Balters teaches cellulose as a suitable material for a separator in a zinc-silver oxide battery with an alkaline electrolyte. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an alkaline battery with a suitable separator material.
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson and Huang as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Melzer (US 20030203281 A1).
Regarding Claim 63, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 51. Adamson does not disclose the particle size of the Zn.
Melzer teaches zinc powder suitable for use in zinc/silver oxide cells (0030). The zinc may have a diameter between 40 and 140 µm (Claim 1), which would overlap the claimed range of 50 µm to 100 µm.
Melzer is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely electrodes comprising zinc.
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 modified the particle size of the Zn of modified Adamson to be the size taught by Melzer as it is a known size for zinc in a zinc/silver oxide cell and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed size ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson and Huang as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Adamson `912 (US 20110286912 A1).
Regarding Claim 64, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 51. Modified Adamson teaches that the AgO particles are coated with lead (Huang: 0057) but does not teach that the lead is in the form of lead oxide (Huang: 0140 – PbAc is used as the coating).
Adamson `912 teaches that a silver oxide active material can be coated with lead oxide (0054).
Adamsom`912 is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely silver oxide cathodes.
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 substituted the PbAc of modified Adamson for lead oxide as it is a known form of lead coating on silver oxide and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B).
Claim(s) 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson and Huang as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 20210126290 A1).
Regarding Claim 65, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 51. Modified Adamson does not teach that the second elastic composite material comprises carbon black.
Inoue teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode containing silver oxide and a negative electrode comprising zinc particles (Abstract). The positive electrode comprises additives in the form of inorganic particles, graphite, and carbon black (Abstract). The additives allow for improved charging-discharging cycle characteristics (0044). In particular, the carbon black reduces electrical resistance and improves reaction efficiency during charging (0056).
Inoue is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries comprising silver oxide and zinc.
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 modified the second composite material layer of modified Adamson to comprise the additives of Inoue, which include carbon black, to improve the charge-discharge cycle characteristics.
Claim(s) 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson and Huang as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Yonehara (US 20140205909 A1).
Regarding Claim 67, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 51. Modified Adamson does not teach that the electrolyte further comprises LiOH and Ca(OH)2.
Yonehara teaches zinc electrodes for batteries such as silver-zinc batteries (Abstract, 0002, 0141). The electrolyte may be an aqueous electrolyte comprising potassium hydroxide (0151). The electrolyte may also include additives such as lithium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide improve the charge and discharge characteristics and suppress corrosion (0150). Two or more additives may be used (0152).
Yonehara is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries comprising zinc.
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 modified the electrolyte of modified Adamson to comprise the additives of Yonehara in order to improve the charge-discharge characteristics and suppress corrosion.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected lithium hydroxide (LiOH) and calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) as the additives as Yonehara teaches them as possible additives for the electrolyte and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Claim(s) 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamson and Huang as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Lockett (US 20180034067 A1).
Regarding Claim 68, modified Adamson teaches the battery of Claim 51. Modified Adamson does not disclose the thickness of the electrodes.
Lockett teaches a battery comprising a silver oxide cathode (Abstract) and a zinc anode (0132). The electrodes may each have a thickness between about 0.5 µm and 1000 µm (0099).
Lockett is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries comprising silver oxide.
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 modified the electrodes of modified Adamson to have the thickness taught by Lockett as it is a known thickness for electrodes and it has been held that the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed thickness ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 66 and 69 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 66, the prior art does not teach or suggest the use of a fluorine-containing copolymer including a combination of ethylene monomers fluorinated with 1 fluorine atom and propylene monomers fluorinated with 4 fluorine atoms in a battery to confine Zn particles or AgO particles.
Peng (US 20170342177 A1) teaches a copolymer between 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and vinyl fluoride (Abstract, 0079). Peng does not teach or suggest using the copolymer in a battery.
Cheng (US 20230197964 A1) teaches an electrode binder comprising vinyl fluoride polymerized with vinylidene fluoride (0025).
Regarding Claim 69, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed voltage fluctuation properties.
Braam (“A Stencil Printed, High Energy Density Silver Oxide Battery Using a Novel Photopolymerizable Poly(acrylic acid) Separator”, cited in the 6/8/2026 IDS), which teaches a battery comprising a silver oxide cathode (Title), a hydrogel electrolyte (Title), and a zinc anode (Figs. 1b and 1d). The battery does not show differences in discharge when flexing at a bend radius of 1 cm (pg. 692, Col. 1, paragraph 2). However, Braam uses Ag2O instead of AgO and the electrodes do not comprise any fluorine-containing copolymer (Experimental Section).
Hiroki (US 20150243962 A1) teaches a battery in which part of an electrode is cut (Abstract, Claim 1), which increases the flexibility of the battery (Abstract, 0026). This process is applicable to silver oxide-zinc batteries (0104). A battery comprising the electrode displays no adverse effects like voltage change during a bending test (0170). However, the bending test of Hiroki does not bend the battery 180° (0167, 0168, Fig. 15A – the minimum curvature radius is 40 mm, which, as shown in Fig. 15A, corresponds to an about 90° bend).
Lockett (US 20180034067 A1) teaches a battery which uses the same printing method as the present invention to form the electrodes (Lockett: 0124, 0126-0145; instant specification: 00114-00119). However, the difference in fluoropolymer concentration in the AgO electrodes (Lockett: 0141; instant specification: 00117) would mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect both the electrodes of Lockett, and therefore the battery, to have the same properties as the electrodes of the present invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cahan (US 3017448 A) teaches that silver electrodes can be coated with lead oxide to reduce the gassing rate of divalent silver oxide (Col. 1, line 71 – Col. 2, line 12).
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 ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
