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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted March 10, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-4 and 7 are amended and claims 9-18 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-8 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure does not provide support for “wherein a 90% or greater efficiency is provided from the array of cells”. Fig. 6 appears to disclose efficiency values for specific values of RL; however, it does not appear that the graph supports a 100% efficiency, which is within the claimed range (90% or greater). Therefore, there is lacking support for the full range of “90% or greater”. Fig. 6 also appears to disclose a dependency of efficiency on the duty cycle D. Regarding paragraph [0050] of the instant specification, the recitation of “90% or more” is related maximum power obtained using specific cell voltage and current ranges.
Additionally, the paragraph referenced by Applicant on page 18 of the response filed March 10, 2026 is not the same scope as the claimed limitation of “a 90% or greater efficiency is provided from the array of cells”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert (US 2017/0047627 A1) in view of Nguyen (Nguyen, C. L. et al. Harvesting Energy from Multiple Microbial Fuel Cells with a High-Conversion Efficiency Power Management System. ACS Omega. 4, 18978-18986 (2019)), Morris (US 6,299,998 B1), and Roche (Roche, R. et al. Optimized Fuel Cell Array Energy Management Using Multi-Agent Systems. IEEE Xplore. DOI: 10.1109/IAS.2011.6074334 (2011)).
Regarding claim 1, Englert teaches a method for operating a metal air battery, the method comprising:
An array of cells each comprising a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are selected from an anode and a cathode (Englert [104-105])
An electrolyte controller (electrolyte supply device, Englert [105]) configured to provide electrolyte to each cell in the array of cells at a flow rate and an electrolyte level for each cell (electrolyte flow for individual batteries, Englert [105])
A disk drive motor controller configured to rotate each first electrode in the array of cells at a rotation rate (rotary drive, anode rotates, Englert [30-31])
Altering the flow rate for at least one cell according to power requirements (Englert [85])
Englert does not explicitly teach monitoring output voltage at an electrical output of a metal air battery and altering at least one operational parameter for at least one cell but fewer than all cells based on the monitoring (Instant claim 1).
However, Nguyen teaches a power management system for an array of fuel cells (Figure in the abstract, Nguyen) wherein voltage is monitored in order to achieve desired power performance and allow for recovery in the case of voltage drop by disconnecting the fuel cell (Nguyen abstract, pg. 18970 left column last paragraph – right column first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the voltage at an electrical output of a metal air battery in the method of Englert and alter the electrolyte flow rate for at least one cell but fewer than all cells in the array of cells based on the monitoring in order ensure power requirements are met and fuel cells are shut down when the voltage drops.
Englert does not teach the electrolyte flow rate, electrolyte level, and rotation rate of each cell being individually controlled.
Morris teaches a movable anode cell battery that comprises a rotating anode disks (Morris abstract, Fig. 6). Morris further teaches that it is known and suitable to individually control the anode disks (Morris Col. 5 lines 32-35). Morris teaches that the motor controller turns anode disks “at the optimal rate to charge or discharge the anode disk” (Morris Col. 6 lines 35-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Englert to include individual control of the rotation rate for each cell in order to optimize charge and discharge performance of the metal air battery system.
Roche teaches a fuel cell array energy management system in which the individual performance of each fuel cell is considered in order to enable flexible control and achieve better economic performance of the energy management system (Roche abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the method of Englert to include individual control of the electrolyte level and electrolyte flow rate of each cell in order to achieve better control of the battery system.
Regarding claim 2, Englert teaches a method for operating a metal air battery, the method comprising:
An array of cells each comprising a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are selected from an anode and a cathode (Englert [104-105])
An electrolyte controller (electrolyte supply device, Englert [105]) configured to provide electrolyte to each cell in the array of cells at a flow rate and an electrolyte level for each cell (electrolyte flow for individual batteries, Englert [105])
A disk drive motor controller configured to rotate each first electrode in the array of cells at a rotation rate (rotary drive, anode rotates, Englert [30-31])
Altering the flow rate for at least one cell according to power requirements (Englert [85])
Englert does not explicitly teach monitoring output voltage at an electrical output of a metal air battery and altering at least one operational parameter for at least one cell but fewer than all cells based on the monitoring (Instant claim 1).
However, Nguyen teaches a power management system for an array of fuel cells (Figure in the abstract, Nguyen) wherein voltage is monitored in order to achieve desired power performance and allow for recovery in the case of voltage drop by disconnecting the fuel cell (Nguyen abstract, pg. 18970 left column last paragraph – right column first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the voltage at an electrical output of a metal air battery in the method of Englert and alter the electrolyte flow rate for at least one cell but fewer than all cells in the array of cells based on the monitoring in order ensure power requirements are met and fuel cells are shut down when the voltage drops.
Englert does not teach the method comprising a cell load module.
Nguyen teaches a cell load module disposed between the array of cells and the electrical output configured to vary resistive load applied to each cell in the array of cells at a resistive load in order to allow for each cell to operate at its own maximum power (switched capacitor converter, Nguyen abstract and pg. 18979 left column). Nguyen further teaches that it is desirable to be able to control the operating parameters of each cell individually due to cells often not have the same optimal operating point, thus leading to reduced voltage and performance when the cells are not controlled individually (Nguyen pg. 18978 right column).
Since Nguyen teaches that it is known and desirable to include a cell load module in a power management systems for fuel cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a cell load module to the method of Englert in order to obtain the predictable result of a method wherein each cell can operate at its own maximum power.
It has been held that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of applying a known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and that the results would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 (C).
Englert does not teach the electrolyte flow rate, electrolyte level, and rotation rate of each cell being individually controlled.
Morris teaches a movable anode cell battery that comprises a rotating anode disks (Morris abstract, Fig. 6). Morris further teaches that it is known and suitable to individually control the anode disks (Morris Col. 5 lines 32-35). Morris teaches that the motor controller turns anode disks “at the optimal rate to charge or discharge the anode disk” (Morris Col. 6 lines 35-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Englert to include individual control of the rotation rate for each cell in order to optimize charge and discharge performance of the metal air battery system.
Roche teaches a fuel cell array energy management system in which the individual performance of each fuel cell is considered in order to enable flexible control and achieve better economic performance of the energy management system (Roche abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the method of Englert to include individual control of the electrolyte level and electrolyte flow rate of each cell in order to achieve better control of the battery system.
Englert is silent to the efficiency value provided from the array of cells.
Morris teaches that it is desirable to control the speed and direction of each anode in each cell in order “maximize the efficiency of the fuel cell battery” (Morris claim 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the method of operating the metal air battery system of Englert such that the efficiency is maximized, including values 90% or greater, in order to obtain a method capable of achieving a performance suitable for a desired battery application.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert in view of Nguyen, Oehr (US 2003/0054208 A1), Morris, and Roche.
Regarding claim 3, Englert teaches a method for operating a metal air battery, the method comprising:
An array of cells each comprising a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are selected from an anode and a cathode (Englert [104-105])
An electrolyte controller (electrolyte supply device, Englert [105]) configured to provide electrolyte to each cell in the array of cells at a flow rate and an electrolyte level for each cell (electrolyte flow for individual batteries, Englert [105])
A disk drive motor controller configured to rotate each first electrode in the array of cells at a rotation rate (rotary drive, anode rotates, Englert [30-31])
Altering the flow rate for at least one cell according to power requirements (Englert [85])
Englert does not explicitly teach monitoring output voltage at an electrical output of a metal air battery and altering at least one operational parameter for at least one cell but fewer than all cells based on the monitoring (Instant claim 1).
However, Nguyen teaches a power management system for an array of fuel cells (Figure in the abstract, Nguyen) wherein voltage is monitored in order to achieve desired power performance and allow for recovery in the case of voltage drop by disconnecting the fuel cell (Nguyen abstract, pg. 18970 left column last paragraph – right column first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the voltage at an electrical output of a metal air battery in the method of Englert and alter the electrolyte flow rate for at least one cell but fewer than all cells in the array of cells based on the monitoring in order ensure power requirements are met and fuel cells are shut down when the voltage drops.
Englert does not teach the method comprising a cell load module.
Nguyen teaches a cell load module disposed between the array of cells and the electrical output configured to vary resistive load applied to each cell in the array of cells at a resistive load in order to allow for each cell to operate at its own maximum power (switched capacitor converter, Nguyen abstract and pg. 18979 left column). Nguyen further teaches that it is desirable to be able to control the operating parameters of each cell individually due to cells often not have the same optimal operating point, thus leading to reduced voltage and performance when the cells are not controlled individually (Nguyen pg. 18978 right column).
Since Nguyen teaches that it is known and desirable to include a cell load module in a power management systems for fuel cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a cell load module to the method of Englert in order to obtain the predictable result of a method wherein each cell can operate at its own maximum power.
It has been held that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of applying a known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and that the results would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 (C).
Englert does not teach a boost control module.
Oehr teaches that it is known that metal-air batteries have a disadvantage of low output voltage (Oehr [2]). Nguyen further teaches a boost control module disposed between the array of cells and the electrical output configured to boost the volage of each cell in the array of cells at a boost control level in order to supply higher voltage to a load (Nguyen pg. 18979 left column).
Since Nguyen teaches that it is known and desirable to include a boost control module in a power management systems for fuel cells and Oehr teaches that it is known that metal-air batteries suffer from low output voltage, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a boost control module to the method of Englert in order to obtain the predictable result of a method wherein a voltage that is suitable for a desired application is supplied to a load.
It has been held that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of applying a known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and that the results would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 (C).
Englert does not teach the electrolyte flow rate, electrolyte level, and rotation rate of each cell being individually controlled.
Morris teaches a movable anode cell battery that comprises a rotating anode disks (Morris abstract, Fig. 6). Morris further teaches that it is known and suitable to individually control the anode disks (Morris Col. 5 lines 32-35). Morris teaches that the motor controller turns anode disks “at the optimal rate to charge or discharge the anode disk” (Morris Col. 6 lines 35-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Englert to include individual control of the rotation rate for each cell in order to optimize charge and discharge performance of the metal air battery system.
Roche teaches a fuel cell array energy management system in which the individual performance of each fuel cell is considered in order to enable flexible control and achieve better economic performance of the energy management system (Roche abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the method of Englert to include individual control of the electrolyte level and electrolyte flow rate of each cell in order to achieve better control of the battery system.
Englert is silent to the efficiency value provided from the array of cells.
Morris teaches that it is desirable to control the speed and direction of each anode in each cell in order “maximize the efficiency of the fuel cell battery” (Morris claim 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the method of operating the metal air battery system of Englert such that the efficiency is maximized, including values 90% or greater, in order to obtain a method capable of achieving a performance suitable for a desired battery application.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert in view of Nguyen, Morris, and Roche, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Huang (US 2010/0305890 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Englert in view of Nguyen, Morris, and Roche teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Englert teaches the electrolyte flow being tuned according to power requirements (Englert [85]). Englert does not expressly teach a computer processor and a data storge unit that executes machine learning software to optimize at least one operational parameter to achieve a predetermined electrical output.
Huang teaches a power supplying network and a method for evaluating power usage (Huang abstract) including a computer processor (evaluating module, Huang [36]) and a data storage unit that uses machine learning (feedback module, neural network) to optimize parameters (Huang [37]). Huang teaches that this method is suitable for use with metal air batteries (Huang [31], [44], claim 17).
Since Englert teaching optimizing electrolyte flow according to power requirements and Huang teaches that it is known and suitable to optimize metal air battery system operating parameters using a computer processor and data storage unit that uses machine learning, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a computer process and data storage unit that executes machine learning software to optimize the electrolyte flow rate to the cells to achieve a predetermined electrical output in order to obtain a method capable of dynamically optimizing electrolyte flow, during the metal air battery system operation, according to power and electrical requirements for a given application.
Regarding claim 6, Englert in view of Nguyen, Morris, Roche, and Huang teaches all features of claims 1 and 5, as described above. Englert does not explicitly teach transmitting stored parameters to a remote data processing center. However, Huang teaches that it is desirable to for suppliers, vendors, or manufacturers to have access to stored operating parameters in order to evaluate and optimize cost control and/or optimize operational flow (Huang [42, 50]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit the stored parameters of Englert in view of Nguyen and Huang to a remote data processing center in order to allow suppliers, vendors, or manufacturers to optimize operational flow and/or cost control.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Englert in view of Nguyen, Morris, and Roche, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sheerin (WO 2019/069139 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Englert in view of Nguyen, Morris, and Roche teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Englert further teaches turning a cell off by altering the flow rate to the cell to remove electrolyte from the cell (Englert [87]). Englert does not teach turning the cell off by spinning an electrode of the cell in addition to altering the flow rate.
Sheerin teaches a method of operating a metal air battery comprising turning a cell off by rotating the anode at a rate of at least 1000 revolutions per minute and stopping electrolyte flow to the cell (Sheerin claim 16). Sheerin teaches that this is done to remove electrolyte, thus drying the anode surface (Sheerin [41]). Sheerin further teaches that the spin dry method has an advantage of eliminating the need for “liquid-tight seals used by many conventional systems”, thus allowing for easy installation (Sheerin [41]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add spinning an electrode of the cell at a rate of at least 1000 revolutions per minute to the method of Englert in order to dry the anode, eliminate the need for liquid-tight sealing, and allow for easy installation.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objections to abstract are overcome by applicant’s amendments to the abstract in the response filed March 10, 2026. The objections to the abstract are withdrawn.
Response – Drawings Objections
The objections to the drawings are overcome by applicant’s amendments to the drawings in the response filed March 10, 2026. The objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1-3 due to informalities are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3 in the response received March 10, 2026. The objections to claims 1-3 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claims 1-4 in the response received March 10, 2026. These rejection of claim 1-4 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation of “individually controlled” in claim 1 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.
Applicant’s arguments filed March 10, 2026 with regard to an assertion of non-analogous art have been fully considered and are not persuasive. On pages 21-22 of the response, applicant asserts that “the combination of Englert and Nguyen is improper”, as “Nguyen is from a non-analogous field”.
In response to applicant's argument that Nguyen is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Englert and Nguyen both disclose energy-producing power management systems that include multiple cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shuster (US 4897321 A): appears to disclose a method of power generation wherein voltage is controlled by varying the electrolyte flow rate (claim 1, paragraphs 10-14, abstract).
Downing (US 5162168 A1): appears to disclose a method for electrolyte flow batteries wherein the output voltage is controlled by tuning the electrolyte flow rate (paragraph 8, abstract, claims 4-7).
Aoki (US 2020/0153008 A1): appears to disclose a converter that boosts or drops the output voltage of a fuel stack to achieve a target output current ([52-57]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights