DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 10/17/2025:
Claim 3 has been amended.
Claims 7 and 10 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 22 have been withdrawn.
The previous objection to the abstract have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous and new prior art has been applied. All changes made are necessitated by the amendment. Thus the action is final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 08/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2005/0175877 to Hong in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0112458 to Dopp et al.
With respect to claim 3, Hong teaches a sealed metal-air battery using a metal as the negative electrode 52 and an air electrode as the positive electrode 51, comprising: a sealed container 53 for housing at least a part of the metal-air battery, wherein during battery storage, the inside of the sealed container contains 53 only the solute 65 of the electrolytic solution; and when the battery is to be used, at least part of the sealed container is opened to inject a solvent 63 for the electrolytic solution thereinto to begin power generation (Hong: Section [0066]; Fig.3).
Hong does not specifically teach the sealed container for housing the entire metal-air battery, wherein the sealed container being a rigid metal container or a rigid resin container.
However, Dopp et al. teach the sealed container for housing the entire metal-air battery, wherein the sealed container being a rigid metal container (Dopp et al.: Section [0036]; Fig. 1). Dopp et al. further teach the air inlet 108 was sealed by the tab 130 (or 132 in figure.1) (Dopp et al.: Section [0040]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Hong with the teaching of the housing of the battery from Dopp et al. with the motivation of having a means such The tab composition is selected to allow only a minimal amount of oxygen into the cell in order to maintain a desired open circuit voltage, so the cell can be quickly activated, while minimizing consumption of the zinc in the anode before the cell is used (Dopp et al.: Section [0040]; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, Hong discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation, “the inside of the sealed container is in a vacuum state or an environment filled with an inert gas, with only the solute of the electrolytic solution contained therein during storage of the battery.” It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the inside of the sealed container is in a vacuum state or an environment filled with an inert gas, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In this specific case, it is known in the art that introducing reactants to a vacuum state or an environment filled with an inert gas reduces the likelihood of unwanted chemical reactions.
With respect to claim 13, Hong teaches the sealed metal-air battery, wherein the negative electrode uses zinc (Hong: Section [0065]; Fig.3).
Claims 16, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2005/0175877 to Hong in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0112458 to Dopp et al. in further view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0021303 to Amendola et al.
With respect to claims 16, 19 and 21, Hong does not specifically teach the sealed metal-air battery, wherein the electrolytic solution inside the metal-air battery is structured to circulate through a reaction section in the can container by natural convection or forced convection; the sealed metal-air battery, further comprising; a fan motor, a temperature sensor and a control circuit for controlling them, wherein the electrolytic solution inside the metal-air battery is forced to cool by the fan motor; wherein the control circuit controls the rotation speed of the fan motor through feedback control based on the detected temperature with the temperature sensor, thereby maintaining the temperature of the chemical reaction section within an appropriate range and suppressing thermal runaway due to reaction heat.
However, Amendola et al. teach a metal air battery system comprising one or more temperature sensors, based on the temperature detected by the temperature sensor, the fans or blowers may be varied and/or maintained to control the rate of air flow (Amendola et al.: Section [0275]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Hong with the teaching above from Amendola et al. with the motivation of having a means such the fan system regulates the temperature of the metal air battery system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 has 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Milton I Cano and Tiffany Legette can be reached on (313) 446-4937 and (571) 270-7078, respectively. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 11/25/2025