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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 04/23/2026:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 22 have been withdrawn.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19 and 21 have been canceled.
Claims 23-26 have been newly added.
The previous rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2005/0175877 to Hong.
With respect to claim 23, Hong teaches a sealed metal-air battery comprising a metal negative electrode 52 and an air positive electrode 51, the sealed metal-air battery comprising: a sealed container 53 configured to house the entire sealed metal-air battery or at least a chemical reaction section thereof; wherein, during storage:(i) a solvent 63 (an electrolyte) required for electrochemical reaction is absent or inactive, and (ii) access of oxygen and moisture to the metal negative electrode is substantially restricted by the sealed container environment (Hong doesn’t specifically teach inside of the supply device 70 contains any oxygen or moisture, in addition the solute 71 is a dry powder), thereby maintaining the sealed metal-air battery in a substantially non-reactive state in which electrochemical reactions between the metal negative electrode 52 and the air positive electrode 51 are suppressed; and wherein, upon use, introduction of an electrolytic solution or a solvent 64 into the sealed container causes ionic conduction to be enabled and electrochemical reaction to be initiated, with ionic conduction and electrochemical reaction occurring in a coordinated and interdependent manner as a result of the introduction, thereby transitioning the sealed metal-air battery from the substantially non-reactive state to an active electrochemical state to initiate power generation (Hong: Section [0066]); Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 24, Hong teaches the sealed metal-air battery, wherein the sealed container contains only a solute 71 of an electrolytic solution during storage (Hong: Section [0066]); Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 26, Hong teaches the sealed metal-air battery, wherein the metal negative electrode comprises reducing materials having aluminum (Hong: Section [0011]).
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2005/0175877 to Hong.
With respect to claim 25, Hong does not specifically teach the sealed metal-air battery, wherein the sealed container is maintained in a vacuum or an inert gas environment during storage.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the sealed container is maintained in a vacuum or an inert gas environment during storage since it was known in the art that putting chemical in a vacuum or an inert gas environment would keep it inactive with other material.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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 5/16/2026
Prosecution Insights