`
`Introduction
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 15 are pending, of which claim 1 is independent.
`
`No amendmenthas been madeto the claimsin this response. No new matter has been
`
`added.
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Yoshii (WO 2017/110023) in view of Hanoet al. (US 2009/0148763) and Zeng (WO
`
`02/101856). Without conceding any correctness of the rejections, Applicant traverses these
`
`rejections for at least the following reasons.
`
`Applicant submits that none of the cited references discloses 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 whole pellet 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 agentin at least one whole pellet positioned in one of end portions in
`
`the height direction of the stack, as recited by claim 1. The Examiner conceded that Yoshiifails
`
`to disclose the first proportion lower than the second proportion and relied on Hano and Zeng to
`
`cure the deficiencies of Yoshii.
`
`Regarding Hano, although the Examinerasserted that Hanodiscloses at least one whole
`
`pellet positioned in a middle portion in a height direction of the stack, referring to FIGS. 1 and 5
`
`of Hano, the Examiner appears to misunderstand FIG. 5 of Hano. FIG. 5 of Hano shows a
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/979,581
`
`battery pack 10 including a plurality of test batteries 11 and does not show pellets within one
`
`battery. Hano doesnotdisclose a plurality of pellets for the positive electrode.
`
`Regarding Zeng, although Zeng appearsto disclose the use of a plurality of pellets 612a,
`
`Zeng does not disclose varying the amount of manganese oxide amongthe pellets in one battery.
`
`The examples of Zeng appear to vary the amount of manganese oxide among batteries, but does
`
`not disclose or even suggest varying the amount of manganese oxide within onebattery.
`
`Accordingly, even in view of Hano and Zeng, the cited references fail to disclose “a first
`
`proportion is lower than a second proportion, where the first proportion is a proportion of a mass
`
`of the conductive agentin a total mass of the manganese dioxide and the conductive agent in at
`
`least one whole pellet 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 agentin at least one whole pellet positioned in one of end
`
`portions in the height direction of the stack” of claim 1.
`
`Assuch, claim 1 and all claims dependent thereon are patentable over the cited reference.
`
`
`
`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: August 29, 2023
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
