DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending, wherein claims 1 and 7-8 are amended. Claims 1-11 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The amended drawing filed May 26 is acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushibe et al. (JP 2020170652 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Kushibe).
Regarding claim 1, Kushibe teaches a negative electrode for use in a zinc secondary battery (Abstract), comprising:
a negative electrode active material layer (“23a” + “23b”, Fig. 3) comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of zinc, zinc oxide, a zinc alloy, and a zinc compound ([0031]), and having a first surface (“51”) and a second surface (“52”),
a negative electrode current collector plate (“21”) embedded in the negative electrode active material layer parallel to the negative electrode active material layer (See Fig. 3), and
a reference plane passing through the center of the negative electrode current collector plate and parallel to the negative electrode current collector plate (See the dotted line in the annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kushibe discloses that D2/D1 (See the figure above) may be less than 1 ([0040], [0058], etc.). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would easily appreciate that T2/T1 (See the annotated figure, above) is less than 1. The range of greater than 0 and 0.5 or less as claimed for T2/T1 overlaps or lies inside that of less than 1 disclosed by Kushibe. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). As a result, it is obvious that the first surface is more remote from the negative electrode current collector plate than the second surface, whereby the center of the negative electrode active material layer is deviated in a thickness direction thereof from a reference plane passing through the center of the negative electrode current collector plate and parallel to the negative electrode current collector plate.
The following are alternative rejections:
Kushibe further discloses that:
1) the thickness difference of the negative electrode active material layers 23a and 23b is adjustable as a result of the number cycles ([0024]), as shown in Fig. 1;
PNG
media_image2.png
533
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
AND
2) the thickness ratio of the negative electrode active material layers 23a and 23b is adjustable by adjusting a gap adjustment unit 54 to vary the position/size of “gap 53” ([0041], [0044]).
Based on either one method of 1) and 2) above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed limitations recited in the last two paragraphs of claim 1 through routine experimentations.
Note that in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed ratio of T2 to T1 being greater than 0 and 0.5 or less is critical or significant, the ratio as claimed is not patentably distinguishable since it can be routinely achieved, as taught by Kushibe, by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentations.
Regarding claim 2, Kushibe teaches the negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode current collector plate is a punched metal ([0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Kushibe teaches the negative electrode according to claim 1, and as addressed in the rejection of claim 1, the instantly claimed ratio can be achieved by either method 1) or 2) presented in the rejection of claim 1. Again, in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed ratio of T2 to T1 being greater than 0 and 0.2 or less is critical or significant, the ratio as claimed is not patentably distinguishable since it can be routinely achieved, as taught by Kushibe, by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentations.
Regarding claim 4, Kushibe teaches the negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein a difference between the T1 and the T2 may be 0.03 mm or less ([0059]). The instantly claimed “0.01 mm or more” overlaps the range of “0.03 mm or less”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Kushibe teaches the negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein the T2 may be 0.2 mm or more ([0060]). The instantly claimed “0.01 to 1.0 mm” overlaps the range of “0.2 mm or more”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, Kushibe teaches a zinc secondary battery (Abstract, [0061]-[0075]) comprising:
a positive electrode active material layer and a positive electrode current collector ([0063]),
the negative electrode according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1),
a hydroxide ion conductive separator separating the positive electrode from the negative electrode so as to be capable of conducting hydroxide ions therethrough ([0025]-[0026]),
an electrolytic solution ([0074]);
wherein the negative electrode is disposed so that the second surface is a side closer to the hydroxide ion conductive separator ([0073]).
Regarding claim 10, Kushibe teaches the zinc secondary battery according to claim 6, wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises nickel hydroxide ([0065]), whereby the zinc secondary battery forms a nickel-zinc secondary battery ([0074]).
Regarding claim 11, Kushibe teaches the zinc secondary battery according to claim 6, wherein the positive electrode active material layer is an air electrode layer, whereby the zinc secondary battery forms an air-zinc secondary battery ([0075]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushibe, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kitoh et al. (US 20170077476 A1, hereafter Kitoh).
Regarding claims 7-9, Kushibe teaches the zinc secondary battery according to claim 6, but appears silent on an LDH separator as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Kitoh discloses an LDH separator comprising a layered double hydroxide is used to separate an electrolytic solution between positive and negative electrodes and ensures conduction of hydroxide ions (at least: [0055]-[0056]). The use of this kind of LDH separator can physically inhibit the penetration of dendritic zinc through separator to prevent short circuit between the positive and negative electrodes, resulting in significantly improved reliability of the battery (at least: [0055]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed an LDH separator comprising a layered double hydroxide taught by Kitoh in Kushibe in order to advantages stated above.
Kushibe in view of Kitoh further teaches the LDH separator further comprises a porous substrate (at least: “porous substrate 56”, [0059], Kitoh) and the LDH is composited with the porous substrate in a form of being filled in pores of the porous substrate (at least: “reliable retention of hydroxide ions”, “on or in the porous substrate”, etc., [0059], Kitoh). Kushibe in view of Kitoh further teaches the porous substrate is made of a polymeric material ([0067], Kitoh).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) Applicant argues about D2/D1. Note however that even if Kushibe discloses D2/D1 may be preferably 0.8 or more, it also discloses a broader D2/D2 may be less than 1.
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, consult In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments, consult Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.1989).
2) Applicant’s argument regarding the criticality of the range as claimed is not persuasive, since the data shown in Table has a linear relationship. 0.5 is not a critical point.
As to the argument regarding “result-effective”, it is noted that “result-effective” variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. Note that the rejection(s) does/did not based on a rationale associated with “result-effective” variable. The argument is moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights