DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the June 25th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on June 25th, 2026:
Claims 1-11 are pending in the present application. Claims 1, 2, and 5 have been amended. No new matter has been added.
Any changes made to the previous grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1 and 2 recite an "excess portion." However, said term is not found in the specification. It appears that the claimed "excess portion" corresponds to the "excessive portion" recited in the specification; “while an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to ensure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification” (see MPEP 608.01(o)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the filed response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 25th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that Lee does not disclose or suggest retaining an excess portion of the electrolytic solution at the bottom of the battery container for supplying electrolyte to the positive electrode during battery operation; and does not disclose a nonwoven fabric covering or wrapping the positive electrode plate and having a lower extension portion that extends downward into contact with the electrolyte. Applicant further argues a lack of motivation for modifying Matsuya by Lee as proposed in the rejection (see pgs. 8-9 of the “Remarks”).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Matsuya is cited for teaching a nonwoven fabric wrapping a positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate ([0031], [0041]-[0042], Fig. 2). Lee et al. teaches an electrolyte in which is injected into a battery container (case) and an excessive portion of the electrolytic solution is formed at the bottom of the battery container ([0009], [0073]); the bottom insulator plate 245, formed of a non-woven fabric, is located below lower ends of the positive electrode plate 210 and negative electrode plate 220, [0074]). Therefore, the nonwoven fabric covering or wrapping up the positive electrode plate of Matsuya is modified by Lee to have an excessive portion of the electrolytic solution retained on a bottom of the battery container in an amount corresponding to a liquid level lower than lower ends of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate, (a skilled artisan would expect the electrolyte to always be retained on a bottom of the battery container within the nonwoven fabric regardless of a change in an amount of the electrolyte caused by charge/discharge based on the electrolyte absorption capabilities of the nonwoven fabric in which is located at a bottom of the battery container of Lee et al., see MPEP 2141.03,I);
Extending the non-woven fabric involves merely integrating the non-woven fabric at the closed edge of Matsuya et al. with the non-woven fabric located at the bottom surface of the container as modified by Lee et al.; whereas, making elements integral is generally recognized as within the ambit of a skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04.V.B.). Further, "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to maximize absorption of the electrolyte while also improving the use of materials and production time (using the existing non-woven fabric rather than adding additional pieces below). Further, "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Applicant further argues that Matsuya nor Lee disclose the advantage of the present invention wherein the zinc secondary battery is capable of effectively preventing electrolyte depletion (see pgs. 9-10 of the “Remarks”).
"The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious" Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (see MPEP 2145(II)).
In this case, Matsuya as modified by Lee teaches or suggests all structural limitations of the claimed invention in view of any creative steps employed by a skilled artisan (positive/negative electrode plates wrapped with a nonwoven fabric wherein the nonwoven fabric extends to an excess portion comprising excess electrolytic solution). Therefore, the advantage of preventing electrolyte depletion as disclosed in the specification would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive. Any changes made to the previous grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
PNG
media_image1.png
428
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 (Matsuya et al.))]Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuya et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200220158 A1, equivalent to WO. Pat. No. 2019077953 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20070020515 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuya et al. teaches a zinc secondary battery (Title), comprising: a unit cell ([0008]), comprising:
a positive electrode plate including a positive electrode active material layer ([0008]);
a negative electrode plate including a negative electrode active material layer containing at least one selected from the group consisting of zinc, zinc oxide, a zinc alloy, and a zinc compound ([0008]);
a nonwoven fabric covering or wrapping each of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate ([0041]-[0042]) teach a liquid retention material 20 including a non-woven fabric in which can cover or wrap the negative electrode plate 16; the positive electrode plate 12 ([0031]) can further be wrapped with the nonwoven fabric 20, see Fig. 2);
a hydroxide ion conductive separator separating the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate so as to make hydroxide ions conductable (layered double hydroxide (LDH) separator, [0008]; the LDH separator conducts hydroxide ions, [0054]);
and an electrolytic solution ([0008]);
and a battery container housing the unit cell ([0005]-[0006]),
wherein each of the positive electrode plate 12 , the negative electrode plate 16, and the hydroxide ion conductive separator 22 is vertically arranged ([0047] teaches said vertical arrangement in which the one closed edge of the separator resides on the bottom while the connector tabs extend from opposite (top) edges),
Matsuya et al. does not teach that an excess portion of the electrolytic solution is always retained on a bottom of the battery container in an amount corresponding to a liquid level lower than lower ends of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate regardless of change in an amount of the electrolyte caused by charge/discharge; and
wherein the nonwoven fabric has a lower extension portion contactable with the excess portion of the electrolytic solution, and a lower end of the lower extension portion is always positioned below the liquid level of the excess portion of the electrolytic solution regardless of change in an amount of the electrolyte caused by charge/discharge, whereby the nonwoven fabric is capable of absorbing the excess portion of the electrolytic solution by capillary action thereof upward from the lower end thereof.
Lee et al. teaches an excess portion of the electrolytic solution in which is retained on a bottom of the battery container in an amount corresponding to a liquid level lower than lower ends of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate ([0009] teaches an electrolyte in which is injected into a battery container (case) and a portion analogous to an excess portion of the electrolytic solution is formed at the bottom of the battery container, [0073]; the bottom insulator plate 245, formed of a non-woven fabric, is located below lower ends of the positive electrode plate 210 and negative electrode plate 220, [0074]). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the excess portion of the electrolytic solution to always be retained at the bottom of the battery regardless of a change in an amount of the electrolyte caused by charge/discharge based on the absorption capabilities of the nonwoven fabric in which is located at a bottom of the battery container of Lee et al.; “Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396” (see MPEP 2141.03,I).
Lee et al. further teaches that the non-woven fabric ([0031]) comprises a bottom or lower portion contactable with the excess portion of the electrolytic solution ([0035]), allowing the electrolyte located at a bottom of the case to be absorbed and impregnated into the electrode assembly ([0074]); [0073] teaches that the non-woven fabric comprises a liquid-absorbing property comparable to a diaper or a wet towel in which a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would consider to be a process analogous to capillary action as claimed, in which allows the absorption of the electrolyte upward from a lower end thereof. A person having ordinary skill in the art would expect a lower end of the lower portion to be positioned below the liquid level of the excess portion the electrolytic solution to allow sufficient absorption of the electrolyte as the non-woven fabric covers the surface of the bottom of the container ([0073]) (see MPEP 2141.03,I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nonwoven fabric covering or wrapping the positive electrode plate of Matsuya et al. to have an excess portion of the electrolytic solution retained on a bottom of the battery container in an amount corresponding to a liquid level lower than lower ends of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate, (a skilled artisan would expect the electrolyte to always be retained on a bottom of the battery container within the nonwoven fabric regardless of a change in an amount of the electrolyte caused by charge/discharge based on the electrolyte absorption capabilities of the nonwoven fabric in which is located at a bottom of the battery container of Lee et al., see MPEP 2141.03,I);
and a lower portion contactable with an excess portion of the electrolytic solution of the electrolytic solution,
and a lower end of the lower portion positioned below the liquid level of the excess portion of the electrolytic solution,
whereby the nonwoven fabric is capable of absorbing the excess portion of the electrolytic solution by capillary action thereof upward from the lower end thereof as taught or suggested by Lee et al.
As the non-woven fabric is located at a bottom of the container of Lee et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a lower end of the lower portion to always be positioned below the liquid level of the excess portion of the electrolytic solution. When performing the described modification, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to utilize known techniques to provide the non-woven fabric of Matsuya et al. at a bottom end surface of the battery container as taught by Lee et al; known methods can include extending the non-woven fabric to a bottom end of the electrode assembly and battery container providing a lower extension portion; one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to maximize absorption of the electrolyte while also improving the use of materials and production time (using the existing non-woven fabric rather than adding additional pieces below). Extending the non-woven fabric involves merely integrating the non-woven fabric at the closed edge of Matsuya et al. with the non-woven fabric located at the bottom surface of the container as modified by Lee et al.; whereas, making elements integral is generally recognized as within the ambit of a skilled artisan (MPEP 2144.04.V.B.). Further, "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification by Lee et al. to enhance the absorbing ability of the electrolyte ([0074]) in which reduces the overall battery manufacturing time and improves productivity ([0081]).
Regarding Claim 2, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Matsuya et al. teaches that the nonwoven fabric is in contact with one surface of the positive electrode plate and the nonwoven fabric is in contact with another surface of the positive electrode plate (Fig. 2 shows the nonwoven fabric 20 wrapped around the positive electrode plate 12 providing nonwoven fabric on both sides of the electrode plate). Matsuya et al. teaches thermally mutually welding a surface corresponding to the closed folded edge ([0050]) of the negative electrode plate (16) in which is located at a bottom surface of the battery container when arranged according to a preferred embodiment as applied to Claim 1; it is preferred that the non-woven fabric is held by the LDH separator and indirectly welded to provide an effective sealing effect ([0050]).
Matsuya et al. does not directly teach that the lower extension portions thereof are thermally welded together to form a welded portion, and a remaining part of the lower extension portions is an unwelded portion not thermally welded, and a lower end of the unwelded portion is always positioned below the liquid level of the excess portion of the electrolytic solution.
However, when performing the described modification of Matsuya et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied to Claim 1, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to provide lower extension portions in which together form a welded portion and an unwelded portion. As Matsuya et al. only suggests indirect thermal wedding via the LDH separator of the negative electrode plate; and does not teach direct welding of the non-woven fabric, it would have been obvious a PHOSITA for the welded portion to exist along the lower extension portion of the negative electrode plate as the negative electrode plate includes an LDH separator around the non-woven fabric; and for an unwelded portion to exist along the lower extension portion of the positive electrode as the positive electrode plate does not include the LDH separator. One of ordinary skill in the art would avoid directly welding the non-woven fabric to prevent negatively affecting the absorption capabilities.
It would have been obvious for a lower end of the unwelded portion to always be positioned below the liquid level of the excess portion of the electrolytic solution as Lee et al. teaches direct contact between the nonwoven fabric and the battery container in which the electrolytic solution and said configuration ensures maximum absorption of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 3, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Matsuya et al. teaches that the nonwoven fabric has a thickness of 20 μm to 100 μm (0.02 to 0.1 mm), within and overlapping the claimed range of 50 to 150 μm. "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 4, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Matsuya et al. teaches that the non-woven fabric can be composed of thermoplastic resin such as polyethylene or polypropylene in which are polyolefins ([0043], [0062]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 5, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Matsuya et al. teaches that the negative electrode plate (16) is covered or wrapped with the hydroxide ion conductive separator (33) from outside the nonwoven fabric (20) in which covers or wraps the negative electrode plate ([0041]-[0042], Fig. 2). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 6, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Matsuya et al. teaches that the hydroxide ion conductive separator is a layered double hydroxide (LDH) separator, [0008]. Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Matsuya et al. teaches that the LDH separator further includes a porous substrate, and is composited with the porous substrate with the LDH filled in pores in the porous substrate ([0044]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Matsuya et al. teaches that the porous substrate is made of a polymer material ([0050]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 9, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Matsuya et al. teaches that the positive electrode active material layer contains nickel hydroxide, whereby the zinc secondary battery is configured as a nickel zinc secondary battery ([0030]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 10, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Matsuya et al. teaches wherein the positive electrode active material layer is an air electrode layer ([0030] teaches a positive air electrode in which implicates air electrode layer as the positive electrode active material layer), whereby the zinc secondary battery is configured as an air-zinc secondary battery ([0030]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
Regarding Claim 11, Matsuya et al. is modified by Lee et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Matsuya et al. teaches that the zinc secondary battery comprises a plurality of the unit cells 11 ([0030]), whereby the plurality of the unit cells form a multilayer cell as a whole ([0050] teaches the multiple unit cells forming a stacked-cell battery providing a multilayer configuration). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Matsuya et al. to provide a secondary zinc battery in which can block propagation of zinc dendrites in a simple configuration that is easy to assemble and easy to collect electricity ([0007]).
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights