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. 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 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 -12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furutan i et al. WO 2018/056307 (See English US 2019/0363412) in view of Deguchi et al. JP S6113580 . With respect to claim 1, Furu t ani et al. discloses a sheet-type air cell 1 comprising: a positive electrode 20 having a catalyst layer, a negative electrode 30 , a separator 40 , and an electrolyte solution that are contained in a sheet-type outer case 60 [Figure 1; 0106-0107; Abstract ; Figure 2 ] , wherein an active material of the negative electrode 30 is composed of a metal sheet, the metal sheet is zinc foil [0098 ; Figure 2 ] having a portion serving as an active material and a lead portion [0121 ; Figure 2 ] , the electrolyte solution is an aqueous solution that contains an electrolyte salt and has a pH of 3 or more and less than 12 . [Abstract; 0040-0045 ; 0015] Furu t ani et al. does not disclose wherein the electrolyte solution further contains a water-soluble high-boiling solvent that has a boiling point of 150 0 C or more. Deguchi et al. discloses an electrolyte solution for a zinc air cell including ethylene glycol (water-soluble high-boiling solvent that has a boiling point of 150 0 C or more) . [Abstract; 0001] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed in Furu t ani et al. to include a water-soluble high-boiling solvent that has a boiling point of 150 0 C or more, as disclosed in Deguchi et al., in order to improve the drying resistance of the electrolyte while improving electrical conductivity. [Abstract; 0001] With respect to claim 2 , Furu t ani et al. does not disclose wherein the electrolyte solution contains a polyhy dr ic alcohol or polyalkylene glycol having a molecular weight of 600 or less as the watersoluble high-boiling solvent. Deguchi et al. discloses an electrolyte for a zinc air cell including ethylene glycol (polyhydric alcohol or polyalkylene glycol having a molecular weight of 600 or less) [Abstract; 0001] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed in Furu t ani et al. to include a polyhydric alcohol or polyalkylene glycol having a molecular weight of 600 or less as the water- BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLPJWB/JWB/boApplication No.: NEWDocket No.: 5271-0340PUS1 Page 6 of 9 soluble high-boiling solvent, as disclosed in Deguchi et al., in order to improve the drying resistance of the electrolyte while improving electrical conductivity. [Abstract; 0001] With respect to claim 3 , Furu t ani et al. does not disclose wherein the water soluble high-boiling solvent has a surface tension of 30 mN / mn or more and a relative dielectric constant of 30 or more. Deguchi et al. discloses an electrolyte for a zinc air cell including ethylene glycol (has a surface tension of 30 mN /m or more and a relative dielectric constant of 30 or more) [Abstract; 0001] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed in Furu t ani et al. to include a solvent having a surface tension of 30 mN /m or more and a relative dielectric constant of 30 or more, as disclosed in Deguchi et al., in order to improve the drying resistance of the electrolyte while improving electrical conductivity. [Abstract; 0001] With respect to claim 4 , Furutani et al. discloses wherein a content of the water soluble high-boiling solvent in the electrolyte solution is 1% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less of a total solvent. [ 0046- 0058] In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Section I . In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) With respect to claim 5 , Furu t ani et al. discloses wherein the aqueous solution has a pH of less than 7. [Abstract; 0015-0016; 0035; 0147] In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Section I . In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) With respect to claim 6 , Furu t ani et al. discloses wherein the aqueous solution has a pH of 5 or more. [Abstract; 0015-0016; 0035; 0147] With respect to claim 7 , Furu t ani et al. discloses wherein a concentration of the electrolyte salt in the electrolyte solution is 5 to 50% by mass. [0123] In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Section I . In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) With respect to claim 8 , Furu t ani et al. discloses wherein the electrolyte solution contains a salt of a strong acid and a weak base as the electrolyte salt. [0040] With respect to claim 9 , Furu t ani et al. discloses wherein the electrolyte solution contains an ammonium salt as the electrolyte salt. [0041] With respect to claim 10 , Furu t ani et al. discloses wherein the metal sheet has a thickness of 10 to 500 µ m. [0098] With respect to claim 1 1 , Furu t ani et al. discloses wherein the metal sheet is zinc alloy foil containing bismuth. [0085] With respect to claim 1 2 , Furu t ani et al. discloses wherein the positive electrode has a current collector made of a porous carbon sheet. [Abstract] Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7589 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Leong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1292 . 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. /KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751