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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Oxide particle” should be “oxide particles”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites a content of Bi and In “in terms of oxide”, however, this is unclear as the claim is to metal elements Bi and In and not to an oxide. The broadest interpretation in the specification is that the Bi and In may be added in any form, such as metal, oxide, and hydroxide, and given that the claim is drawn to the amounts of the metal, the claim will be interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretation, that is, the amount of Bi and/or In is present in an amount as claimed.
Claims 9 recites the limitation "the metal element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as
Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites components including an active material comprising ZnO particles and Zn particles, a polymer, and does not claim a metal element. However, claim 7 does claim that the composition of claim 1 further comprises a metal element, and it appears as though claim 9 should be dependent upon claim 7, or should recite that the electrode of claim 1 further comprises a metal element in the form of oxide particles.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the LDH separator" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim depends from claim 11, which requires a separator, but does not recite that the separator is a layered double hydroxide (LDH) separator. Claim 12 does, and it appears as though the claim was intended to be dependent upon claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (CN 101740762 and its machine translation).
Zhu et al disclose a battery comprising a positive electrode ([0032]), a membrane, an electrolyte, and a negative electrode (abstract, claim 1), wherein the zinc negative electrode (cathode) comprises an active material and a binder (instant claims 1, 11).
The zinc-containing material particles include zinc compounds, zinc alloys, and zinc elementary substances, with the binder being a water-soluble resin having a -OH group, including polyvinyl alcohol (PVA). Examples include zinc powder particles, zinc oxide particles (ZnO), and PVA, wherein the PVA is present in an amount of 0.01 to 5 wt % based on the amount of the active material (claim 2, [0047], [0064]; instant claims 1 and 2). The zinc material, including ZnO is present in an amount of 90 to 99.9 wt %, and the percentage of ZnO in the sample may be approximately 85% of the total composition in the non-limiting examples. The parts by weight of ZnO being taken as 100 parts by weight, and the amount of binder being 0.01 to 6 wt% of the total, can be estimated overlapping 0.01 to about 5 wt% of the ZnO which falls within the scope of the instant claim 1, wherein the teachings of the reference include ranes of ZnO and binder which may overlap the instantly claimed ranges. Even assuming a 1:1 ratio of ZnO to Zn, and the amount being 90 to 99.9% of the electrode composition, it can be estimated that the amount of binder would reasonably fall overlap the claimed range.
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepar eth eelectrode of Zhu et al, choosing to include the ZnO/ Zn particles and binder in amounts wherein the binder falls within the scope of the instant claim 1. The electrode would comprise ZnO, Zn particles, and a PVA (water-soluble) binder in an amount falling within the scope of the claims. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amount of binder based on the 100 parts by weight of ZnO in the electrode, through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the electrolyte storage for improved discharge as taught by the reference (abstract, [0005]).
With respect to the amount of Zn particles to the content of ZnO particles in the electrode composition being 100 parts by weight, the reference teaches that the total amount of ZnO and Zn particles is preferably between 90 and 99.9 wt % (total for zinc-containing materials) of the electrode active material and given the examples, it can be estimated that the amount of Zn to ZnO particles reasonably falls within the scope of the instant claims 6 which requires 1.0 to 87.5 parts by weight. Furthermore, even if assuming a 1:1 ratio, it can be estimated that the parts by weight of Zn to ZnO would fall within the scope of the instant claim 6. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amount of Zn particles based on the 100 parts by weight of ZnO in the electrode, through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve reduced battery resistance ([0011]) and meet the limitations of the instant claim 6.
The reference teaches that PVA is a preferred polymer, but fails to specifically note that the polymer can change its liquid absorbency in response to pH. Given that the reference binder polymer comprises a preferred polymer as set forth by the instant specification for possessing the ability to change liquid absorbency in response to a variance in pH. The material of the reference would inherently possess the claimed property and meet the limitations of the instant claim 5.
The reference further teaches that the material may further comprise additional additives, including bismuth and/ or indium oxides in amounts of 0.1 to 10 wt% of the active material ([0020]; instant claims 7 and 9).
The reference further teaches that the electrode is a pressed sheet ([0040], [0046]; instant claim 10. The positive electrode may be a nickel hydroxide electrode ([0032], [0041]; instant claim 14), wherein the separator would be capable of conducting hydroxide ions as required by the instant claim 11. The reference teaches that the battery may be a zinc-air battery, therefore the electrode is a zinc air electrode ([0002]; instant claim 15.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayaashi et al (WO 2020/049902 and its US equivalent 11,387,446 as a translation. Citations are for the US document/ translation).
Hayashi et al disclose a negative electrode and zinc battery (preferably an air battery; column 5, line 62 to column 6, line 15, claim 12; instant claim 15), wherein the electrode comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
212
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
216
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
180
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the electrode comprises at least two of Zn particles, IN or Bi, and a polymer having a -OH group. The material may comprise ZnO particles, Zn particles, at least one or In or Bi (which may be an oxide; instant claim 7), and a binder having a -OH group (hydrophilic and water-soluble) in an amount of 0.01 to 0.05 parts by weight based on 100 parts Zn particles (see claim 1 above; instant claim 1).
When the electrode comprises (i) and (iii), the electrode meets the limitations of the instant claim 1.
The Zn particles are preferably an amount falling within the scope of the instant claims (10 to 90 parts by weight to 100 parts ZnO particles; claim 1; instant claim 6), and the Bi or In may be in an oxide form (instant claim 9), and present in an amount of 0.3 to 2.5 parts In2O3 and 0 to 0.6 parts Bi2O3 based on 100 parts ZnO (claim 1; instant claim 8). The binder is preferably PVA (instant claims 1 and 2), and examples employ Vinylon, a known and commercially available product of PVA powder/ particulate form having a diameter of about 70 microns (claims 4 and 5, Tables 1 and 2; instant claims 1, 2, and 4).
The reference teaches that PVA is a preferred polymer, but fails to specifically note that the polymer can change its liquid absorbency in response to pH. Given that the reference binder polymer comprises a preferred polymer as set forth by the instant specification for possessing the ability to change liquid absorbency in response to a variance in pH. The material of the reference would inherently possess the claimed property and meet the limitations of the instant claim 5.
The electrode is a sheet-like pressed product (column 5, lines 35-43; instant claim 10).
The battery further comprises a positive electrode an electrolyte, and a separator capable of conducting hydroxide ions (column 5, line 62 to column 6, line 15, claim 8; instant claim 11).
The positive electrode is preferably a nickel hydroxide or oxyhydroxide (claim 11; instant claim 14). The separator is preferably a layered double hydroxide (LDH) separator having a porous base (claims 9 and 10; instant claims 12 and 13).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the electrode and battery of Hayashi et al, choosing to prepare the electrode material wherein at least (i) and (iii) are present.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al in view of Osaka (JP 53-070348 and its machine translation).
Zhu et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a negative electrode composition comprising zinc particles and a hydrophilic binder. The reference includes non-limiting examples, such as PVA, but fails to specifically teach a polyalkylene oxide.
Osaka disclose a zinc electrode comprising zinc particles and a polyethylene oxide (PEO), a known hydrophilic polymer, as a binder (abstract, claims), or a combination of PVA and PEO. The PEO polymer as a binder improves the discharge performance of the electrode (page 240/ paragraph 3).
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the electrode of Zhu et al, choosing as the hydrophilic binder, that taught to be known and advantageous by Osaka, wherein the resultant material would also meet the limitations of the instant claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al in view of Hayashi et al.
Each reference has been discussed above.
Zhu et al disclose a zinc electrode comprising a PVA binder, but the reference fails to specifically teach the diameter of the polymer particles.
Hayashi et al disclose a similar electrode and uses a PVA binder, wherein the binder is a commercially available product in a powder/ particle form, wherein the diameter is 70 microns.
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Zhu et al, choosing as the PVA binder, that known and useful in similar electrodes as taught by Hayashi et al. The resultant materials and binder would also meet the limitations of the instant claim 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722