Application No.: 16/979,581
`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-15 are pending, of which claims 1 and 5 are independent.
`
`Claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 15 have been amendedto correct informalities in the claim
`
`language and to more clearly define the present subject matter. No new matter has been added.
`
`Substance of Interview
`
`Applicant thanks the Examiners for their time and courtesy during an interview
`
`conducted with the Applicant’s representative, Takashi Saito, on August 25, 2022. During the
`
`interview, the differences between the claims and the prior art were discussed. The Examiners
`
`agreed that the foregoing amendment would overcomethe rejections. This response reflects the
`
`substance of the interview.
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Claims 1-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamato
`
`(US 2018/0309138 as WO 2017/119018). Without conceding any correctness of the rejections,
`
`Applicant traverses these rejections for at least the following reasons.
`
`Applicant submits that Yamato fails to disclose that a first proportion is lower than a
`
`second proportion, where the first proportion is a proportion of a mass of the conductive agent
`
`in a total mass of the manganese dioxide and the conductive agentin at least one wholepellet
`
`positioned in a middle portion in a height direction of the stack, and the second proportion is a
`
`proportion of a mass of the conductive agent in a total mass of the manganese dioxide and the
`
`conductive agent in at least one whole pellet positioned in one of end portions in the height
`
`DM_US190377288-1.083710.3154
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/979,581
`
`direction of the stack, as recited by claim 1, and that a first resistance is higher than a second
`
`resistance, where the first resistance is resistance of at least one whole pellet positioned in a
`
`middle portion in a height direction of the stack, and the second resistance is a resistance of at
`
`least one whole pellet positioned in one of end portions in the height direction of the stack, as
`
`recited by claim 5.
`
`With respect to these features, the Office Action asserted that paragraph [0054] of
`
`Yamato (reproduced below) discloses the claimed relationship.
`
`[0054] The density dc of manganese dioxidein the center portion in the height direction
`of the positive electrode is 98% or less, and may be 96% orless of an average value of
`densities de of manganese dioxide in the both end portions. In view of suppressing
`cracking andsplitting of pellets during molding, the density dc of manganese dioxideis
`preferably 75% or more, and may be 80% or more of the average value of densities de of
`manganese dioxide. The upper limit and lowerlimit values thereof can be combined
`arbitrarily. The density dc of manganese dioxide may be 75 to 98%, 80 to 98% or 75 to
`96% of the average value of densities de of manganese dioxide.
`
`However, the center portion and the end portions as described in paragraph [0054] of
`
`Yamato is determined as the entire positive electrode, and do notrefer to one whole pellet
`
`positioned in a middle portion in a height direction of the stack or one whole pellet positioned in
`
`end portionsin the height direction of the stack. In fact, for example, FIG. 2 of Yamato shows
`
`two pellets which are identical in manganese oxide density. Although FIG. 5 of Yamato shows
`
`three pellets, Yamato at most discloses density distribution within each pellet, and does not
`
`disclose that the center pellet 22a (as a whole) has a lower conductive agent or a higher
`
`resistance than those of the end pellets 22b. Thus, Applicant submits that Yamato does not
`
`disclose the last paragraphsof claims 1 and 5.
`
`Assuch, claims 1 and 5 and all claims dependent thereon are patentable overthe cited
`
`reference.
`
`DM_US190377288-1.083710.3154
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/979,581
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Having fully respondedto all matters raised in the Office Action, Applicant submits that
`
`all claims are in condition for allowance, an indication for whichis respectfully solicited. If
`
`there are any outstanding issues that might be resolved by an interview or an Examiner’s
`
`amendment, the Examineris requested to call Applicant’s attorney at the telephone number
`
`shownbelow.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account 500417 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`/Takashi Saito/
`
`Takashi Saito
`Registration No. 69,536
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 53080
`as our correspondenceaddress.
`
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001-1531
`Phone: 202.756.8244 TS:lw
`Facsimile: 202.756.8087
`Date: September 15, 2022
`
`DM_US190377288-1.083710.3154
`
`