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 .
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on Mar. 15, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japan 2021-041875 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Oct. 26, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
The limitation “in a thickness direction thereof” recited in claim 1 (the end of the fourth paragraph) can be interpreted as modifying “derived from” or “passing through”, which renders the scope of the claim unascertainable. Claim 1 and its dependent claims are thus indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as referring to “deviated from” in a thickness direction since it appears to be Applicant’s intent. As such, the claimed “a reference plane through the center of the negative electrode current collector” is a very broad subject matter since the direction of the reference plane is not defined.
The term “like” in claim 7 renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) III. E. Claims 8-9 are also rejected because of their dependencies on claim 7.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 in a thickness direction thereof (See the dotted line in the annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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], Fig. 1); 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).
Conclusion
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