RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Amendments to the claims, filed 05/29/2026, have been entered in the above identified application.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are pending in the application.
Claims 5 and 6 are cancelled in the application.
WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS/REJECTIONS
The objections to the claims made of record in the office action mailed
04/15/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response
filed 05/29/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1-4, and 7 as being anticipated by Heping (CN114122571 A ) made of record in the office action mailed on have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 05/29/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1,2, 4, 7 and 8 as being anticipated by Guha (US PG Pub. 2017/0237134 A1) made of record in the office action mailed on 04/15/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 05/29/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections (Heping in view of Inoue) of claims 5 and 6 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/15/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 05/29/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections (Guha in view of Inoue) of claims 5 and 6 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/15/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 05/29/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections (Heping in view of Ein-Eli) of claims 8, 9, and 10 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/15/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 05/29/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections (Guha in view of Ein-Eli) of claims 9 and 10 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/15/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment/argument in the response filed 05/29/2026.
REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1- 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heping (CN114122571 A, for prior art discussion see the cited machine translation) in view of in view of Inoue (U.S. PG PUB 2021/0126290 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heping discloses a metal-air battery (aluminium-air battery, n0007) with aluminum as anode (para. n0003, n0007), an air electrode as cathode (para. n0007) and an ion conducting alkaline electrolyte solution interposed therebetween (ref. 3, figure 1, para. n0026). Heping further discloses the alkaline electrolyte comprises of polyethylene glycol and potassium hydroxide (para. n0026). Heping discloses polyethylene glycol in the electrolyte is in a concentration range of 0.1~100 g in each liter (para. n 0026).
Heping fails to disclose the average molecular weight of the polyethylene
glycol used as the electrolyte additive.
Inoue discloses an alkaline secondary battery containing zinc-based
negative electrode and an alkaline electrolyte solution comprising of potassium hydroxide concentration preferably 38 mass% or less (less than 9.3 mol/L) and
polyethylene glycol (para. 0022, 0094, 0102-103). Inoue further discloses the
preferable average molecular weight of polyethylene glycol used is 200 or more (para.
0092). The calculation for the amount of polyethylene glycol as disclosed by Heping
when the average molecular weight of polyethylene glycol is 200 g/mol is as shown
below and it falls within the claimed range. (MPEP 2144.05 (I))
0.1
g
o
f
P
E
G
200
i
n
1
l
i
t
e
r
=
0.1
g
200
g
/
m
o
l
=
500
µ
m
o
l
/
L
100
g
o
f
P
E
G
200
i
n
1
l
i
t
e
r
=
100
g
200
g
/
m
o
l
= 0.5 𝑚𝑜𝑙/𝐿
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to include an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol in the claimed concentration range and to use polyethylene glycol whose average
molecular weight is 200 g/mol or above as taught by Inoue. One of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to include use polyethylene glycol whose average
molecular weight is 200 g/mol or above to reduce zinc dendrite formation and improve
cycle characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Heping discloses the alkaline solution contains potassium hydroxide (para. n0026)
Regarding claim 3, Heping discloses the potassium hydroxide is present in
a concentration of 0.1~8 mol/L (para. n0026).
Regarding claim 4, Heping fails to disclose the electrolyte contains polyethylene glycol PEG 400 with an average molecular weight of 380-420 g/mol.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Inoue discloses an electrolyte with polyethylene glycol whose average molecular weight is 200 g/mol or above (para. 0092, 0191) there by encompassing PEG-400. Inoue further discloses in order to easily achieve the effect of the polyalkylene glycol to be added, the polyalkylene glycol are preferably water-soluble and generally have a weight average molecular weight of 20000 or less, and more preferably 5000 or less (para. 0092).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art for the electrolyte of Heping to select PEG-400 which falls within the range of molecular weight as taught by Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success such as selection would make the PEG soluble in water and suitable to obtain an electrolyte for the battery.
Regarding claim 7, Heping discloses the metal -air battery has aluminum as anode (para. n0003, n0007).
Claims 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heping (CN114122571 A, for prior art discussion see the cited machine translation) in view of in view of Inoue (U.S. PG PUB 2021/0126290 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Ein-Eli (WO 2011061728 A1 for purpose of prior art discussion refer to US PG Pub 2012/0299550 A1 for WO 2011061728 A1).
Heping and Inoue are relied upon as discussed above.
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 10, Heping and Inoue fails to disclose a metal-air battery where in the anode contains Silicon – amorphous silicon, silicon wafer and silicon in the form of a powder.
Ein-Eli discloses a silicon-air battery (ref. 10, figure 1 para. 0061) where in
anode is a silicon wafer (ref.12, figure 1, para. 0061, 0086) and nickel mesh air cathode (ref. 14, figure 1, para. 0061). Ein-Eli further discloses in an embodiment the
anode comprises of amorphous silicon (para. 0016, 0079) and another embodiment
where silicon powder is used as the anode material (para. 0023, 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to have an anode containing amorphous silicon, or silicon
wafer or silicon in a powder form as taught by Ein-Eli. One of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to include a silicon anode as a chemical fuel due to their
high energy density and electrochemical performance.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guha (US PG Pub. 2017/0237134 A1) in view of Inoue (U.S. PG PUB 2021/0126290 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Guha discloses a metal-air battery (zinc-air battery) with a zinc anode (para. 0003, 0106), an air cathode (para. 0003, 0051) and anion conducting alkaline electrolyte (para. 0007) between the electrodes. Guha further discloses the electrolyte comprises of alkaline solution of potassium hydroxide (para. 0007, 0091) and polyalkylene glycol containing ethylene oxide - poly ethylene glycol (para. 0009 –0010). Guha et al. discloses using polyethylene glycol (corrosion inhibitor) present in the electrolyte from about 100 ppm to about 25000 ppm (para. 0072).
Guha et al. fails to disclose the average molecular weight of the polyethylene
glycol used as the electrolyte additive.
Inoue et al. discloses an alkaline secondary battery containing zinc-based negative electrode and an alkaline electrolyte solution comprising of potassium hydroxide concentration preferably 38 mass% or less (concentration less than 9.3 mol/L) and polyethylene glycol (para. 0022, 0094, 0102-103). Inoue et al. further discloses the preferable average molecular weight of polyethylene glycol used is 200 or more (para. 0092). The calculation for the amount of polyethylene glycol as disclosed by Guha et al. when the average molecular weight of polyethylene glycol is 200 g/mol is as shown below and it falls within the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05 (I))
100
p
p
m
o
f
P
E
G
200
i
n
1
K
g
(
=
1
L
)
=
0.1
g
200
g
/
m
o
l
=
500
µ
m
o
l
/
L
25000
p
p
m
o
f
P
E
G
200
i
n
1
k
g
=
1
L
=
25
g
200
g
/
m
o
l
=
0.13
m
o
l
/
L
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to include an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol in the claimed concentration range and to use polyethylene glycol whose average molecular weight is 200 g/mol or above as taught by Inoue. One of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to include use polyethylene glycol whose average
molecular weight is 200 g/mol or above to reduce zinc dendrite formation and improve
cycle characteristics.
Regarding claim 2 Guha further discloses the electrolyte comprises of potassium hydroxide (para. 0007, 0091).
Regarding claim 4, Guha fails to disclose the electrolyte contains polyethylene glycol PEG 400 with an average molecular weight of 380-420 g/mol.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Inoue discloses an electrolyte with polyethylene glycol whose average molecular weight is 200 g/mol or above (para. 0092, 0191) there by encompassing PEG-400. Inoue further discloses in order to easily achieve the effect of the polyalkylene glycol to be added, the polyalkylene glycol are preferably water-soluble and generally have a weight average molecular weight of 20000 or less, and more preferably 5000 or less (para. 0092).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art for the electrolyte of Guha to select PEG-400 which falls within the range of molecular weight as taught by Inoue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include use PEG-400 as such a selection would be make the PEG soluble in water and suitable to obtain an electrolyte for the battery.
Regarding claim 7 Guha discloses metal-air battery comprising of a zinc anode (para. 0003, 0106).
Regarding claim 8, Guha further discloses in an embodiment the anode is
an alloy which contains silicon (para. 0106).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guha (U.S. PG PUB 2017/0237134 A1) in view of Heping (CN114122571 A, for prior art discussion see cited machine translation).
Guha and Inoue are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 3, Guha and Inoue fails to disclose the concentration of potassium hydroxide present in the electrolyte.
Heping discloses a metal-air battery (aluminum-air battery, n0007) with
aluminum as anode (para. n0003, n0007), an air electrode as cathode (para. n0007) and an ion conducting electrolyte solution interposed therebetween (ref. 3, figure 1, para. n0026). Heping further discloses the alkaline electrolyte comprises of
polyalkylene glycol containing polyethylene oxide and potassium hydroxide (para. n
0026). The concentration of potassium hydroxide is 0.1~8 mol/L (para. n0026). Heping further discloses that such an electrolyte can slow down electrode corrosion and improve battery life
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Guha to have concentration of potassium hydroxide as taught by Heping. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the concentration of KOH in the claimed range to get an electrolyte that can slow down electrode corrosion and improve battery life.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guha (US PG Pub. 2017/0237134 A1) in view of Inoue (U.S. PG PUB 2021/0126290 A1) as applied to claim 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, above, and further in view of Ein-Eli (WO 2011061728 A1, for purpose of prior art discussion refer to US PG Pub 2012/0299550 A1 for WO 2011061728 A1).
Guha and Inoue are relied upon as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Guha and Inoue fails to disclose a metal-air battery wherein the anode contains amorphous silicon, silicon in the form wafer and powder.
Ein-Eli discloses a silicon-air battery (ref. 10, figure 1 para. 0061) where in
anode is a silicon wafer (ref.12, figure 1, para. 0061, 0086) and nickel mesh air cathode
(ref. 14, figure 1, para. 0061). Ein-Eli further discloses in an embodiment the
anode comprises of amorphous silicon (para. 0016, 0079) and another embodiment
where silicon powder is used as the anode material (para. 0023, 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling
date of the claimed invention to have an anode containing amorphous silicon, or silicon
wafer or silicon in a powder form as taught by Ein-Eli. One of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to include a silicon anode as a chemical fuel due to their
high energy density and electrochemical performance.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 05/29/2026 regarding the claim
objection of record has been considered but are moot since the objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 5, Heping does not disclose, teach or suggest at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L. It is agreed Heping does not disclose, teach or suggest at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L which is why Heping is now used in combination with Inoue to teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/29/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. §102 on page 5 and 6 have been fully considered but are moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 6, Guha does not disclose, teach or suggest at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L. It is agreed Guha does not disclose, teach or suggest at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L which is why Guha is now used in combination with Inoue to teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/29/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 on page 7 have been fully considered but are moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 8 that neither Heping nor Ein-Eli, taken singly or in combination, teaches or suggests at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L, as recited in amended independent claim 1 from which claims 8-10 directly or indirectly depend. It is agreed Heping nor Ein-Eli does not disclose, teach or suggest at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L. Therefore, Heping in combination with Inoue and Ein-Eli teaches all the limitations of claims 8-10.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 9 neither Guha nor Heping, taken singly or in combination, teaches or suggests at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L, as recited in amended independent claim 1 from which claim 3 indirectly depends. It is agreed Guha nor Heping nor Ein-Eli does not disclose, teach or suggest at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L. Therefore Gua/Heping in combination with Inoue teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Regarding applicants’ argument on page 10 neither Guha nor Ein-Eli, taken singly or in combination, teaches or suggests at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L, as recited in amended independent claim 1 from which claims 9 and 10 directly or indirectly depend. It is agreed Guha nor Ein-Eli does not disclose, teach or suggest at least an electrolyte containing polyethylene glycol at a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L. Therefore Guha in combination of Inoue and Ein-Eli teaches all the limitations of claims 8-10.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/29/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 on page 9 have been fully considered but are moot since the rejection has been withdrawn
Conclusion
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 ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788
08/05/2026
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights