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 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 3 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “partially fluorinated resin” in line 3, and the claim also recites “polyvinyl fluoride” in line 3, which comprises repeating units of formula (CH2-CHF)n and is a partially fluorinated polymer/resin, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura et al. (US-20170012334-A1), hereinafter Yamamura in view of Muraoka et al. (WO-2015119041-A1), hereinafter Muraoka, as cited and translated in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamura teaches an air electrode/separator assembly, comprising: a hydroxide ion conductive separator ([0035] layered double hydroxide separator that is hydroxide ion conductive; fig. 3 separator 11; [0032]), an interface layer (fig. 3, layer 12a; [0032]) comprising a hydroxide ion conductive material (fig. 3, layer 12a has hydroxide ion conductive material 15; [0032]) and an electron conductive material (fig. 3, layer 12a has electron conductive material 14; [0030]-[0032]); [0032]) and covering one side of the hydroxide ion conductive separator (fig. 3 interface layer 12a covers separator 11; [0032]), an air electrode layer provided on the interface layer and comprising a catalyst layer (fig. 3 layer 12b; [0032]) composed of a layered double hydroxide (LDH) covering a surface thereof (fig. 3; layer 12b includes hydroxide ion conductive material 15; [0028] hydroxide ion conductive material 15 comprises a layered double hydroxide).
The embodiment of figure 3 of Yamamura does not explicitly teach that the air electrode layering comprising the catalyst layer is composed of a porous current collector. Yamamura does teach that the air electrode may have a positive electrode current collector such as a metal mesh, carbon paper, or carbon cloth, on the air electrode layer remote from the separator ([0034]), and shows in figure 4 how the porous nickel current collector 23b is bonded to the air electrode layer 22 on the side remote from the separator 21 ([0059]). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of figure 3 of Yamamura such that the air electrode layering comprising the catalyst layer is composed of a porous current collector. Doing so is disclosed as a placement possibility in Yamamura [0034] while still allowing gas permeability such that air can be fed to the air electrode layer ([0034]).
Yamamura fails to teach a water repellent porous layer covering a surface of the air electrode opposite to the hydroxide ion conductive separator.
Muraoka is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air electrodes (pg. 1 line 10) Muraoka teaches a water repellent porous layer covering a surface of the air electrode opposite to the separator (pg. 16, lines 643-667). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamamura and added a water repellent porous layer covering a surface of the air electrode opposite to the hydroxide ion conductive separator. Doing so allows oxygen gas to be supplied to the air electrode catalyst layer while also preventing leakage of the electrolyte and improving battery safety (Muraoka pg. 16, lines 643-667).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yamamura also teaches wherein a water repellent porous material constituting the water repellent porous layer comprises a fluororesin material (Muraoka pg. 16, line 643 – pg. 17, line 682)
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Modified Yamamura also teaches wherein the fluororesin material is at least one selected from the group consisting of a fully fluorinated resin, a partially fluorinated resin, a polyvinyl fluoride, and a fluorinated resin copolymer (Muraoka pg. 17, lines 668-683; examples of materials including copolymers and polyvinyl fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yamamura also teaches wherein the water repellent porous layer has a thickness of 0.01 to 1 mm (Muraoka pg. 17, lines 697-703; 50 μm to 3 mm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yamamura also teaches wherein the water repellent porous layer has a porosity of 30% or more (Muraoka pg. 17, lines 687 - 696; 10% to 90%, preferably 20% to 80%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamura also teaches wherein the hydroxide ion conductive material included in the interface layer is the same type of material as the hydroxide ion conductive material included in the hydroxide ion conductive separator ([0035] layered double hydroxide separator that is hydroxide ion conductive; fig. 3 separator 11; [0032]; likewise, interface layer 12a has hydroxide ion conductive material 15; [0028] hydroxide ion conductive material 15 comprises a layered double hydroxide).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Yamamura also teaches wherein the hydroxide ion conductive material included in the interface layer and the hydroxide ion conductive material included in the hydroxide ion conductive separator are both LDHs and/or LDH-like compounds ([0035] layered double hydroxide separator that is hydroxide ion conductive; fig. 3 separator 11; [0032]; likewise, interface layer 12a has hydroxide ion conductive material 15; [0028] hydroxide ion conductive material 15 comprises a layered double hydroxide).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamura also teaches wherein the electron conductive material included in the interface layer comprises a carbon material ([0026; electron-conductive material 14 can be a carbon black material, graphite, or conductive fiber).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Yamamura also teaches wherein the carbon material is at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon black, graphite, carbon nanotubes, graphene, and reduced graphene oxide ([0026]; electron-conductive material 14 can be a carbon black, graphite, or any type having electrical conductivity and capable of conducting electrons between the air electrode catalyst and the separator).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamura also teaches wherein the porous current collector is composed of at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon, nickel, stainless steel, and titanium ([0034] porous current collector can be a carbon paper, carbon cloth, nickel mesh, or stainless steel mesh).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamura also teaches wherein the catalyst layer comprises a mixture comprising a hydroxide ion conductive material (fig. 3; hydroxide ion conductive material 15; [0032]), an electron conductive material (fig. 3; electron conductive material 14; [0030]; [0032]), an organic polymer ([0029] hydroxide ion conductive material may contain a polymer in a mixture with the layered double hydroxide such as polystyrene; alternatively, [0031] the air electrode layer may contain a polymer binder such as polyethylene), and an air electrode catalyst (fig. 3; air electrode catalyst 13; [0032]), provided that the hydroxide ion conductive material may be the same material as the air electrode catalyst, and provided that the electron conductive material may be the same material as the air electrode catalyst ([0024] the air electrode layer may contain the air electrode catalyst also serving as the electron-conductive material and the hydroxide-ion-conductive material).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamura also teaches wherein the hydroxide ion conductive separator is a layered double hydroxide (LDH) separator ([0035] layered double hydroxide separator that is hydroxide ion conductive).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 19. Yamamura also teaches wherein the LDH separator is composited with a porous substrate ([0038]-[0039] separator may be in the form of a composite body with a porous body substrate and an inorganic solid electrolyte).
Regarding claim 21, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yamamura also teaches a metal negative electrode, and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte is separated from the air electrode layer by the hydroxide ion conductive separator interposed therebetween (Yamamura [0015]; [0040] metal negative electrode and an electrolytic solution separated from the air electrode layer by the separator), and the metal negative electrode, the hydroxide ion conductive separator, the air electrode layer (Yamamura [0040] the metal negative electrode is on the other side of the separator; fig. 3 shows the lamination of the separator and the air electrode layer), and the water repellent porous layer are laminated and positioned in order from top to bottom (Muraoka; fig. 6; pg. 16, line 643 – 667; water repellent layer 7 can be positioned on the air catalyst layer or on the air catalyst layer current collector, on the opposite side of the separator).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura in view of Muraoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuya (JP-H1150290-A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yamamura fails to teach wherein the water repellent porous layer is composed of a porous material covered with water repellent fine particles.
Furuya is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of water repellent layers ([0003] water-repellent porous thin layer). Furuya teaches wherein the water repellent porous layer is composed of a porous material covered with water repellent fine particles ([0003] gas supply layer of water-repellent porous thin layer formed from fine particles of fluororesin-based polymers; [0021] gas supply layer is formed by placing he water-repellent fluororesin fine particles into the porous body; alternatively [0019] providing fluororesin onto the gas supply surface of the conductive porous body).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yamamura such that the water repellent porous layer is composed of a porous material covered with water repellent fine particles. Doing so improves the uniformity of gas supply (Furuya [0008]) and provides the predictable result of forming a water-repellent layer that prevents leakage of the electrolyte (Furuya [0003]; [0019]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Modified Yamamura also teaches wherein the water repellent fine particles comprise a fluororesin material (Furuya [0003] gas supply layer of water-repellent porous thin layer formed from fine particles of fluororesin-based polymers; [0021] gas supply layer is formed by placing he water-repellent fluororesin fine particles into the porous body)
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Modified Yamamura also teaches wherein the porous material is at least one selected from the group consisting of a polymer material, a metal mesh, and a carbon sheet (Furuya [0016] metal porous body, continuous foam of plastic, carbon material plated with nickel, metal mesh).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura in view of Muraoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukazawa et al. (US-20190088967-A1), hereinafter Fukazawa.
Regarding claim 13, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yamamura is silent as to the porosity of the catalyst layer.
Fukazawa is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrodes with catalyst layers. Fukazawa teaches wherein the catalyst layer has a porosity of 60% or more ([0034] 50 to 90% porosity of the catalyst layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Muraoka such that the catalyst layer has a porosity of 60% or more. Doing so allows for smoother discharge of a substance like water while maintaining efficiency of the noble metal catalyst (Fukazawa [0034]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura in view of Muraoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US-20170260048-A1), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yamamura also teaches that the LDH has a form of a plate shape ([0048]).
Modified Yamamura fails to teach wherein the LDH included in the catalyst layer has a form of a plurality of LDH platy particles, and the plurality of LDH platy particles are bonded vertically or obliquely to a surface of the porous current collector.
Yamamoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LDH separators ([0011]). Yamamoto teaches wherein the LDH included in the catalyst layer has a form of a plurality of LDH platy particles, and the plurality of LDH platy particles are bonded vertically or obliquely to a surface of the porous current collector ([0036]-[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yamamura such that the LDH included in the catalyst layer has a form of a plurality of LDH platy particles, and the plurality of LDH platy particles are bonded vertically or obliquely to a surface of the porous current collector. Doing so fully or significantly reduces the anisotropic hydroxide ion conductivity of the LDH to the thickness direction n of the layer, such that the conductivity along the thickness direction can be increased (Yamamoto [0036]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 14. Modified Yamamura also teaches wherein the plurality of LDH platy particles are connected to one another in the catalyst layer (Yamamoto [0036]-[0039]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamura in view of Muraoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Numata et al. (US-20210175520-A1), hereinafter Numata.
Regarding claim 17, modified Yamamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Yamamura is silent as to the thickness of the porous current collector.
Numata is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air electrodes ([0010]) Numata teaches wherein the porous current collector has a thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm ([0042]; [0050] 0.2 mm to 2 mm and more preferably 0.5 mm to 1 mm for the porous body that constitutes the air electrode current collector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yamamura such the porous current collector has a thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm. Doing so reduces the amount of metal required while maintaining the necessary strength of the current collector (Numata [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Naka et al. (US-20220149479-A1) teaches a water repellent porous layer covering a surface of the air electrode opposite to the separator ([0035] water repellant membrane between the positive electrode and the outer case; fig. 1 water repellant membrane 40 and positive electrode 10; [0053] porous) that prevents leakage of the electrolyte solution and prevents moisture from entering from outside (Naka [0039]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights