DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-7 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Nation” is interpreted to be a typo for “Nafion™”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 refers to “a rectangular case” and then only refers to “the case,” such that the antecedent of “the case” is indefinite. Are there a plurality of cases, including a rectangular case? Or only one case, referred to as “the case” throughout? The Office has interpreted it in line with the specification to refer to the enclosure of the cell.
Claim 4 depends only on claim 1 but refers to “the polymer solution,” which has no antecedent basis in claim 1 (only in claim 3). It is further unclear what, precisely, is meant by saying “wherein the non-woven fibers have sulfur backbone originated from [Nafion] structure and a rigid structure originated from polyacrylic acid”—is this simply a description of a perfluorinated carbon backbone with sulfonic acid groups and the hydrogen-bonding propensity of polyacrylic acid polymers? Or does it refer to positive structural features beyond simply requiring an electrospun separator formed from perfluorosulfonic acid and polyacrylic acid—perhaps something more specific about the composition? The claim has been interpreted broadly to require only a separator formed of non-woven fibers of PAA and PFSA. Claim 4 is also rejected for indefiniteness concerning the trademarked term Nafion™. Is the claim directed towards a specific brand-name product or to a class of polymers? If a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of § 112(b). See MPEP § 2173.05(u). The claim has been interpreted broadly to refer to a class of polymers formed from PFSA.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Note on Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 is directed towards a “slow oxygen transport membrane” and a “fast oxygen transport membrane.” These terms are interpreted as relative terms of degree that require two separate membranes with different oxygen transport properties, one greater than the other, rather than referring to two distinct classes of membranes with objective, clearly delimited oxygen transport properties.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0077484 to Chen et al.) in view of Nagayama (JP 2016/081577 to Nagayama et al., the Office cites to provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches:
a zinc-air battery system comprising a zinc-air battery array formed by connecting a plurality of zinc-air battery cells 100 (Figs. 1 and 6, ¶ 0057)
each cell having a rectangular case with an air positive electrode part 121/122, a separator 161/163, and a zinc anode in a housing 113 (¶ 0065-0069)
an external electrolyte tank configured to flow the electrolyte from the tank into the zinc gel electrode part in each of the cells so that the electrolyte within the tank and the electrolyte in the cells are circulated (¶ 0092)
wherein the tank and case are provided with gas vent holes (¶ 0067, 0107)
wherein the case is provided with electrolyte inflow and outflow portions 114A/B (¶ 0067)
PNG
media_image1.png
698
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the outflow portion is arranged at a position higher than a position where the electrolyte inflow portion is provided
Nagayama, however, form the same field of invention, regarding a zinc-air cell, teaches just such a configuration (Fig. 4), and teaches that it improves performance (¶ 0049).
PNG
media_image2.png
278
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide a higher outflow position, as taught in Nagayama, in order to better circulate the electrolyte, as taught in Nagayama.
Regarding 2, both Chen and Nagayama teach:
wherein the stacked cells include outflow and inflow portions between adjacent cells that are connected to each other, as the whole system circulates the electrolyte
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0077484 to Chen et al.) in view of Nagayama (JP 2016/081577 to Nagayama et al., the Office cites to provided English translation), in further view of Kim (Kim et al. “Artificially engineered, bicontinuous anion-conducting/-repelling polymeric phases as a selective ion transport channel for rechargeable zinc-air battery separator membranes.” J. Mater. Chem. A, 2016, 4, 3711) and Valentin (Valentin et al. “Characterization of Electrospun Nafion-PolyAcrylic Acid Membranes, Breakthroughs in High Water Uptake Membranes.” Am. Trans. Eng. Appl. Sci, vol. 3, no. 1, 2014).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Chen teaches:
a separator chosen from conventional separators in the art, but does not explicitly teach a PAA/PFSA electrospun, non-woven separator (¶ 0083)
Kim, however, teaches a PFSA/PAA membrane for use in a zinc-air cell with improved ion transport and suppressed crossover (abstract), and Valentin teaches that PFSA/PAA membranes with excellent water uptake were commonly electrospun (abstract, experimental). It would have been obvious to use such membranes in the cells of Chen, since Chen renders obvious PFSA membranes known in the art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0077484 to Chen et al.) in view of Nagayama (JP 2016/081577 to Nagayama et al., the Office cites to provided English translation), in further view of Kisdarjono (US 2014/0370401 to Kisdarjono et al.) and Maschmeyer (WO 2020/186307 to Maschmeyer et al.).
Regarding Claim 5-6, Chen does not explicitly teach:
an “elastic conductive” material like graphene or expanded graphite in the zinc electrode part
Kisdarjono, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a zinc-air cell (abstract) teaches that carbon conductive additives, including graphite or carbon nanoparticles, improve performance (¶ 0009-0010). Maschmeyer, meanwhile, also directed towards a flow cell with an electrode gel, such as zinc (¶ 0003), teaches an electrolyte solution with graphite, graphene, and expanded graphite, suggesting the substitutability of graphene and expanded graphite for conventional graphite materials in the art, and in zinc gel electrodes (¶ 0016). It would have been obvious to use expanded graphite and/or graphene as a conductive additive, as suggested by Kisdarjono and Maschmeyer with the motivation to improve conductivity and gel properties of the electrolyte. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0077484 to Chen et al.) in view of Nagayama (JP 2016/081577 to Nagayama et al., the Office cites to provided English translation), in further view of Sun (CN 104716334 to Sun et al., the Office cites to provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen teaches:
multiple separators, some used during charging and some during discharging (e.g. ¶ 0081)
Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the air positive electrode part includes two transport membranes, one with a greater intrinsic transport property than the other
Sun, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a metal-air battery, teaches two separators, one with a greater porosity than the other, improving cell cycling (p. 1). It would have been obvious to use different porosity separators, as taught by Sun, to improve the cycling performance of the cell(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723