DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-04-13, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 4 have been amended; Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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
Claim 1 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).
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
wherein adjacent rectangular cases are connected to each other via inflow/outflow portions that directly connected to each other by a tube 210 (Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image2.png
710
672
media_image2.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_image3.png
278
480
media_image3.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.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. The claim has been amended to require a tube for transferring electrolyte between adjacent cells. Applicant argues in the Remarks (2026-04-13) that Nagayama does not teach such a tube directly connecting adjacent cells. The primary reference, Chen, however, teaches such a connection method. Although Nagayama is cited for teaching different height positions for the inflow/outflow ports, it would nonetheless have been obvious to modify Chen to take advantage of the flow pattern described in Nagayama, and one of advantage of an external tube is that its length and shape is freely variable to reach any port, as desired. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Where a prior art component has the same function as the instantly claimed component, motivation to alter the shape of the component to any other equally useful shape is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the shape of the tubes in Chen to reach any particular port locations desired along the cell stack, since the tubes function as mere connectors that are secondary to the internal port architecture and layout.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights