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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10-30-2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 16-19, 22-26, 29 and 32-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 16-18; 19, 22-25, 33 and 26, 29, 32 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.
Claim 1 is rejected because the claim can only comprise a separator and cannot comprise “at least one separator”. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear what is meant by “embedded within a gel”. Claim 18 is rejected because of the way the claim is written because of the use of “further”. The claim should cite “wherein the separator comprises a cellophane, …or combination thereof”. Claim 19 is rejected because the claim can only comprise a separator and cannot comprise “at least one separator”. Claim 19 is rejected because the claim should cite “comprises a hydroxide alkaline solution”. Claim 19 is rejected because it is unclear where the housing is positioned in regard to the dual electrolyte battery. Claim 33 resolves this issue. Claims 23-24 are rejected because the claim should cite “wherein a concentration of the hydroxide solution in the”. Claim 26 is rejected because the claim can only comprise a separator and cannot comprise “at least one separator”. Claim 26 is rejected because the 2nd phrase “wherein a concentration of the hydroxide in the second gelled solution is in a range of from 20-55 wt%” is a duplicate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seki et al. (US 2019/0296344) teaches a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material comprising Zn, a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material, wherein on the positive electrode side and the negative electrode side different electrolytes are used, the pH of the electrolyte of the positive electrode is 1 to 7 and the pH of the electrolyte of the negative electrode side is from 7 to 14. Seki et al. teaches a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode wherein the separator allows the electrolyte to be capable of migrating between the positive electrode and the negative electrode but does not teach that a separator is disposed between the anolyte and the catholyte. Seki et al. teaches the pH of the electrolyte of the negative electrode is from 7 to 14 (i.e. wherein the anolyte comprises an alkaline electrolyte) (Para. [0107]) and may include lithium hydroxide (Para. [0090] but does not teach the alkaline electrolyte is present in the anolyte in an amount of 20-55 wt.%, based on the total weight of the anolyte. Seki et al. teaches that the pH of the electrolyte of the positive electrode is 1 to 7 which is acidic and not basic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723