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 Status
The preliminary amendment of 6/13/2023 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-28 have been added; support is found in original claim 1-15.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities: “a coating” should be “the hydrophobic coating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the claims recite “at least one of” or “any one of” these limitations have been examined as to be in the alternative and only one of the following options were to be selected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19-21, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Dopp et al. (EP 1 859 505 B1, of IDS 6/13/2023).
As to claim 16, Dopp et al. discloses a metal-air cell (zinc air cell –[0031]) comprising:
a. a first housing part (102-cathode can) and a second housing part (110 metal anode cup) that together form a cell housing (figure 1); and
b. a metal based anode (zinc-112)[0026], a layer-shaped air cathode (114-air electrode [0027] and an electrolyte [0026] (alkaline electrolyte),
wherein
c. the first housing part has at least one air passage opening (108-air inlet),
d. a layer-shaped air diffusor is arranged between the first housing part and the air cathode (122-air diffusion membrane),
e. a layer-shaped separator (116) is arranged between the air cathode (114) and the metal-based anode (112) (figure 1),
f. the layer-shaped air diffusor (122) is configured to be air permeable [0027] and has a first side facing the air cathode and a second side facing away from the air cathode (figure 1), and
g. the layer-shaped air diffusor (122) has a hydrophobic coating (120-hydrophobic membrane) on at least one of the sides [0027, 0031 -lines 32-34] discloses that 120 can be a coating].
As to claim 17. Dopp et al. discloses the metal-air cell of claim 16, wherein the hydrophobic coating is a polytetrafluoroethylene coating [0027].
As to claim 19. Dopp et al. discloses the metal-air cell of claim 17, wherein at least one of
a. the hydrophobic coating is based on a coating with a dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene [0027] (as it is a coating it will be dispersed, [ 0031] -lines 30-34);
As to claim 20, Dopp et al. discloses the metal-air cell according to claim 16, wherein the layer-shaped air diffuser comprises an air-permeable matrix formed of a hydrophilic material discloses a separate component that can be used as an air diffusion membrane and can be made of PVA which is a hydrophilic material [0034, line 54-55] [0038].
As to claim 21, Dopp et al. discloses the metal-air cell of claim 20, wherein at least one of
a. the air-permeable matrix is a nonwoven fabric [0028] (paper),
As to claim 25. Dopp et al. discloses the metal-air cell of claim 16, wherein a. the metal-air cell is a zinc-air cell [0027].
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dopp et al. (EP 1 859 505 B1).
As to claim 22. Dopp et al. discloses the metal-air cell according to claim 16, wherein the layer-shaped air diffusor has a coating on one side (as discussed in claim 1) but not on both sides of the air diffusor.
However, it has been held that duplication of parts for a multiplied effect has no patentable significance, it would have been well within the purview and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide another. (MPEP 2144VIB).
As to claim 23, Dopp et al. discloses the metal-air cell of claim 16, but does not describe the amount of PTFE in terms of weight per unit area as 40-16g/m2 as is instantly claimed.
However, it has been held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is critical evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore it has been held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, the amount of PTFE will determine the hydrophobicity of the diffusion layer.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dopp et al. (EP 1 859 505 B1) in view of Lin et al. (US 6300011 B1).
As to claim 24, Dopp et al. discloses the metal-air cell of claim 16, which discloses a cathode layer 114, a hydrophobic layer 120 an air diffusion layer 122 but does not disclose an additional layer between the air cathode and the diffusor layer as is instantly claimed.
Lin et al. discloses a zinc air battery comprising a cathode 133, an electrolyte barrier layer 135 made of polytetrafluorethylene (additional layer), a second barrier layer 132 and an air diffuser layer 131 (as seen in figure 2). The electrolyte barrier layer will prevent the electrolyte from leaking. (col. 6 lines 52-col. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the electrolyte barrier (additional layer) because this will prevent electrolyte from leaking.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dopp et al. (EP 1 859 505 B1) in view of Rebouillat et al. (US 2014/0037915 A1).
As to claim 18, Dopp discloses the metal-air cell of claim 16, with a hydrophobic coating but does not disclose the hydrophobic coating is an alkyl ketene dimer coating.
Rebouillat et al. discloses a cathode and teaches a hydrophobic treatment such as ketene dimer treatment [0037]. Rebouillat et al. is analogous as it pertains to applying a hydrophobic treatment to air cathode.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed replace the PTFE of Dopp with the ketene dimer coating because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (MPEP 2143, B)
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dopp et al. (EP 1 859 505 B1) in view of Takebe et al. (US 2004/0137292 A).
As to claims 26-28, Dopp et al. discloses a layer-shaped air diffusor for the metal-air cell according to claim 16, but does not comprising the following:
providing an air-permeable matrix; and the air-permeable matrix with a hydrophobic coating, wherein a dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene in an aqueous dispersant; the dispersion of polytetrafluoroethylene has a solid content of polytetrafluoroethylene in the dispersant of 5 to 75% by weight (applies to claim 27) wherein the coating is provided by an immersion process (claim 28) .
Takebe et al. discloses the method of making a gas diffusion layer [0296]. Which includes an aqueous dispersion of PTFE containing 20 by weight of PTFE in dry weight (thus the solid content of PTFE applied claim 27) by dipping (dipping/immersion are equivalents ) on to carbon paper (matrix).
A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.02).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727