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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid et al. WO2022253835A1, hereinafter Reid.
Regarding Claim 1, Reid teaches a negative electrode for a zinc battery [Reid p.2 and throughout, para 30, Reid teaches a zinc electrode], comprising:
a plate-like negative electrode core member [Reid p. 12-16, p. 42 and throughout, Reid teaches first and second current collector, which can be printed or provided separately and attached [p. 12], where the second current collector can be the negative current collector 14, and the negative current collector of Fig. 1 has a flat plate-like appearance. Further, Reid teaches an example with a copper current collector as the negative electrode core member [p. 42], which can be printed or applied separately as a current collector [as described throughout]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Reid’s negative current collector meets the claim limitation.]; and
a negative electrode mixture layer formed on at least one main surface of the negative electrode core member [Reid p. 16-20 and throughout, p. 40-41, and Example 3, where Zn particles are on the surface of a Cu current collector plate], wherein the negative electrode mixture layer contains a negative electrode mixture [Reid p. 16-20 and throughout, p. 40-41, and Example 3, Zn particle mixture layer.],
wherein the negative electrode mixture includes zinc particles formed from at least one of zinc and a zinc alloy [Reid p. 16-20 and throughout, p. 40-41, Example 3, Zn particle mixture layer.] and
wherein on the at least one main surface of the negative electrode core member, a number of deformed areas in which a change in a length in a thickness direction of the negative electrode core member with respect to a reference exceeds 50 µm is 2.4 or less per square millimeter [Reid p. 17-18, 40-41, and throughout, Reid does not teach any deformed areas in the thickness direction exceeding 50 µm. Further as evidence of Reid meeting the limitation, Reid teaches the D90 for active layer particle must be less than 20 µm [p. 17-19] and teaches an example with a D90 for Zn particles is less than 1 µm [p. 40-41]. Thus, the skilled artisan would expect there would be no known reason for the number of deformed areas (deeper than 50 µm) to be more than zero per square millimeter. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that Reid’s core member has zero deformed areas exceeding 50 µm per square millimeter, which overlaps and obviates the claim limitation of less than 2.4. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed invention from Reid’s teaching since the skilled artisan would expect that Reid’s negative electrode core member would overlap and obviate the claimed defect density due to the evidence provided above.].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Reid discloses the negative electrode for a zinc battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode mixture layer formed on the at least one main surface of the negative electrode core member has a thickness (referred to as T) in the thickness direction of the negative electrode core member [Reid p. 15-20, 33, 40-42. Fig. 1, Example 3, Reid teaches a thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer is less than 100 µm and is preferably no more than 20 µm [Reid p. 33].] and wherein a ratio of a particle size distribution D90 (referred to as D90) of the zinc particles to the thickness T, that is, "D90/T" is 1.9 or less [Reid p. 15-20, 33, 40-42. Fig. 1, Example 3, Reid teaches the thickness of the active layer is less than 100 µm and is preferably no more than 20 µm [Reid p. 33]. Reid further teaches the D90 particle size is less than 20 µm. The ratio D90/T is thus less than 0.2 to less than 1, which overlaps the claimed range of less than 1.9. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Reid teaches example 3 with a particle size D90 of 1 µm and a thickness of 20 µm [Reid p. 40-42]. This example has a ratio of .05 which anticipates the claimed range. Thus, the limitations are met by Reid.].
Regarding Claim 4, Reid teaches a method for manufacturing a negative electrode for a zinc battery, comprising:
forming a negative electrode mixture layer on at least one main surface of a plate- like negative electrode core member with a negative electrode mixture containing zinc particles formed from at least one of zinc and a zinc alloy [Reid p. 12-20, p. 40-42, and throughout, Fig. 1, Example 3, Reid teaches first and second current collector, which can be printed or provided separately and attached [p. 12], where the second current collector can be the negative current collector 14, Fig. 1. Reid’s negative current collector reads on the claimed plate-like negative electrode core member with a negative electrode mixture. Reid further teaches Zn particle as a mixture layer [p. 19, 40-42, and throughout].], wherein a ratio of a particle size distribution D90 (referred to as D90) of the zinc particles contained in the negative electrode mixture to a thickness (referred to as T) of the negative electrode mixture layer formed by the forming in a thickness direction of the negative electrode core member, that is, "D90/T" is 1.9 or less [Reid p. 15-20, 33, 40-42. Fig. 1, Example 3, Reid teaches the thickness of the active layer is less than 100 µm and is preferably no more than 20 µm [Reid p. 33]. Reid further teaches the D90 particle size is less than 20 µm. The ratio D90/T is thus less than 0.2 to less than 1, which overlaps the claimed range of less than 1.9. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Reid teaches example 3 with a particle size D90 of 1 µm and a thickness of 20 µm [Reid p. 40-42]. This example has a ratio of .05 which anticipates the claimed range. Thus, the limitations are met by Reid.], and
wherein on the at least one main surface of the negative electrode core member, a number of deformed areas in which a change in a length in the thickness direction with respect to a reference exceeds 50 pm is 2.4 or less per square millimeter [Reid p. 17-18, 40-41, and throughout, Reid does not teach any deformed areas in the thickness direction exceeding 50 µm. Further as evidence, Reid teaches the D90 for active layer particle must be less than 20 µm [p. 17-19] and teaches an example with a D90 for Zn particles is less than 1 µm [p. 40-41]. Thus, the skilled artisan would expect there would be no known reason for the number of deformed areas (deeper than 50 µm) to be more than zero per square millimeter. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that Reid’s core member has zero deformed areas exceeding 50 µm per square millimeter, which overlaps and obviates the claim limitation of less than 2.4. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed invention from Reid’s teaching since the skilled artisan would expect that Reid’s negative electrode core member would overlap and obviate the claimed defect density due to the evidence provided above.].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid as provided for claim 1 above, and in further view of Brewer et al. [WO2022005999A1], hereinafter Brewer.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Reid discloses the negative electrode for a zinc battery according to claim 1 but is silent to wherein an arithmetic average height on the at least one main surface of the negative electrode core member is 7.4 µm or less. Brewer teaches a negative electrode core member where the arithmetic average height on the at least one main surface of the negative electrode core member is 7.4 µm or less [Brewer abstract, 0101, 0132-0184 and throughout, Brewer teaches the surface roughness of the copper current collector for the anode is greater than 250 nm [Brewer abstract and throughout], or 0.25 µm, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Brewer teaches the negative electrode copper core member may be used with an anode mixture layer including a Zn layer deposited on the copper surface [Brewer 0054-0055 and throughout] and the bulk active material may also include Zn [Brewer 0101]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Brewer’s teaching about the arithmetic average height of the negative electrode core member with Reid’s negative electrode core member by selecting a range near the minimum taught by Brewer. Thus, it would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Brewer’s teaching about the arithmetic average height on the at least one main surface of the negative electrode core member in Reid’s negative electrode for a zinc battery since both teach copper current collectors for negative electrodes [Brewer 0100-0101; Reid p. 42 and throughout]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Brewer’s teachings about the surface roughness of the negative electrode core member in Reid’s negative electrode for a Zn battery since both teach forming a Zn negative electrode mixture on a copper current collector as described above for the predictable result of an electrode current collector for a zinc battery. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights