DETAILED 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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 17-18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean US2683182A (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022) in view of Harada CN1132949A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Jean discloses a method for iron electrode manufacture (Jean, Col. 1-5), comprising:
providing a particulate iron material (Jean, Col. 2 lines 12-19) into an apparatus (Jean, Col. 4 line 61 – Col. 5 line 12, claim 5), the examiner notes that the teaching of a molding and suitable supporting frames by Jean satisfies the limitations of into an apparatus as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
applying pressure to the particulate iron material in the apparatus for a time period (Jean, Col. 5 lines 6-9)
to form an electrode having therein conductive connections between particles of the particulate iron material (Jean, Col. 1 lines 20-25, Col. 2 lines 7-8, Col. 4 lines 38-48).
Jean further discloses forming the electrode from highly porous particulate iron material and the electrode being formed over and into the interstices of a mesh like support (Jean, claim 1), satisfying the claim limitations wherein further comprising forming texture on the electrode.
Jean also discloses wherein the alkaline storage battery iron electrode (Jean, claim 1) is formed by methods of applying pressure known to the skilled artisan (Jean, Col. 5 lines 25-33) Jean however does not disclose wherein the texture of the electrode defining a predetermined pattern of recessed channels, and the electrode having increased density along recesses of the recessed channels relative to density of the electrode away from the recessed channels.
In a method for manufacture of iron-based electrodes in alkaline storage batteries Harada teaches wherein an electrode plate comprising iron material is provided into an apparatus (Harada, [0035]) and wherein applying pressure to the iron material in the apparatus for a time period to form an electrode (Harada, [0035]). Harada additionally teaches forming texture on the electrode, the texture of the electrode defining a predetermined pattern of recessed channels (Harada, [0035], Figs. 4-5 and 8-10, high-porosity portion 7, low-porosity portion 8). The examiner notes that Harada teaches the pattern of channels on the electrode form a low-porosity portion and a high-porosity portion (Harada, [0023], Figs. 4-5 and 8-10, high-porosity portion 7, low-porosity portion 8), the high porosity portion formed by applying pressure by pressing a roller to the particulate material not located in the recesses of the roller, thereby creating compacted recesses on the electrode (Harada, [0027], [0031], [0035], high-porosity portion 7) and the electrode having increased density along these compacted recesses on the electrode of the compacted recessed channels on the electrode, as the recessed areas of the rollers would create protruding non-compacted areas on the electrode having lower density, relative to density of the electrode at the recessed channels on the electrode,
satisfying the claim limitation forming texture on the electrode, the texture of the electrode defining a predetermined pattern of recessed channels, and the electrode having increased density along recesses of the recessed channels relative to density of the electrode away from the recessed channels, thereby creating an electrode having increased density along recesses of the recessed channels on the electrode relative to density of the electrode away from the recessed channel on the electrode in order to improve the conductivity of large surface area planar flat electrodes having a small proportion of low porosity portions (Harada, [0044], [0068]).
Therefore it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the texture of the electrode of Jean with the teaching of Harada wherein forming texture on the electrode, the texture of the electrode defining a predetermined pattern of recessed channels, and the electrode having increased density along recesses of the recessed channels relative to density of the electrode away from the recessed channels thereby improving the conductivity of large surface area planar flat electrodes having a small proportion of low porosity portions.
The examiner notes this interpretation is in line with Instant [00153-00154] and Figs. 9-11, where the increased density portions are formed from the protruding portions of the rollers and the lower density portions are created by the recesses of the rollers.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above and teaches the pressure it applied to form a plate by methods of applying pressure known to the skilled artisan (Jean, Col. 5 lines 25-33) including wherein the apparatus comprises compaction rollers and the applied pressure applied in the apparatus is generated at least in part by the compaction rollers (Harada, [0035]).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Jean teaches wherein the pressure applied in the apparatus is in a range from about 98 to 294 MPa (Jean, Col. 5 lines 6-9) which significantly overlaps with the claimed ranged of from about 0.1 to about 200 MPa and overlaps with the claimed range from about 1 to about 100 MPa.
The Courts have held that 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) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Jean further teaches the pressure is applied to form plates using the suitable supporting frames (Jean, Col. 5 lines 6-9, claim 5), satisfying the claim limitation wherein the pressure applied in the apparatus is applied by a uniaxial, biaxial, triaxial, isostatic method.
Regarding claim 16, modified Jean additionally teaches further comprising performing surface cleaning of the particulate iron material prior to applying pressure to the particulate iron material in the apparatus (Jean, Col. 2 lines 37-45), the examiner notes that some of the steps taught by Jean are recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be steps that clean the surface of the particulate iron material.
Regarding claim 17, modified Jean also teaches prior to providing the particulate iron material into the apparatus, preheating the particulate iron material (Jean, Col. 2 lines 37-45).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jean further teaches prior to providing the particulate iron material into the apparatus, controlling a particle size of the particulate iron material (Jean, Col. 4 line 75 – Col. 5 line 1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Jean additionally teaches wherein providing the particulate iron material into the apparatus comprises, at least in part, depositing a portion of the particulate iron material onto a substrate (Jean, Col. 5, lines 44-46).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean US2683182A (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022) in view of Harada CN1132949A (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narayan US20150086884A1 (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above but is not directed toward the atmosphere in which the pressure is applied.
In a method for iron electrode manufacture Narayan teaches that in forming iron electrodes the atmosphere must not have traces of even water or oxygen to avoid the oxidation of the iron particles (Narayan, [0122]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Jean with the teaching of Narayan wherein the pressure is applied in a non-oxidizing atmosphere in order to avoid oxidation of the iron particles.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean US2683182A (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022) in view of Harada CN1132949A (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaramillo WO2018187561A1 (using US20200136153A1 as translation; cited in office action mailed 21 December 2023).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations as set forth above but does not disclose wherein further comprising removing oxidation after formation of the electrode.
In a method of iron electrode manufacture Jaramillo teaches adding carbon to the iron material increasing the conductivity of the anode and helps with reduction of oxidized anode material. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Jean with the teaching of Jaramillo wherein further comprising removing oxidation after formation of the electrode thereby improving conductivity of the electrode.
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean US2683182A (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022) in view of Harada CN1132949A (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 18 above, in view of Janot, Raphaël, et al.. "Ball-milling in liquid media: Applications to the preparation of anodic materials for lithium-ion batteries." Progress in Materials Science 50.1 (2005): 1-92 (hereafter referred to as Janot-2005; cited in office action mailed 21 December 2023).
Regarding claims 19-22, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations as set forth above including wherein prior to providing the particulate iron material into the apparatus, controlling a particle size of the particulate iron material (Jean, Col. 4 line 75 – Col. 5 line 1). Jean how does not explicitly disclose reducing a particle size of the particulate iron material from a first particle size to a second particle size.
In a method for iron electrode manufacture Janot-2005 teaches wherein various milling types and techniques are well known in the art in order to form powders for later processing to form materials that are quite difficult by classical methods (Janot-2005, section 1.1.4). Janot-2005 further teaches wherein reduction of the particle size by milling, such as hammer milling and gyratory milling (Janot-2005, section 1.1.2), starts by a rapid splitting and, then, there is successively splitting, crushing and coalescence of the particles, leading to an homogeneous powder, whose mean particle size depends on the nature of the powders and on the milling conditions (Janot-2005, section 1.1.1) and the milling duration and grain size control the charge ratio (Janot-2005, section 1.1.3.2, Fig. 6). Janot-2005 therefore identifies the reduction of the particle size as a known result effective variable which controls the charge ratio.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the method of modified Jean through routine experimentation wherein controlling the particle size of the particulate iron material comprises reducing a particle size of the particulate iron material from a first particle size to a second particle size, wherein the second particle size is one half of the first particle size, wherein the second particle size is one quarter of the first particle size thereby improving the charge ratio.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean US2683182A (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022) in view of Harada CN1132949A (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gorji, Nima E., et al. "Recyclability of stainless steel (316 L) powder within the additive manufacturing process." Materialia 8 (2019): 100489 (hereafter referred to as Gorji-2019; cited in office action mailed 21 December 2023).
Regarding claim 24, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further wherein other processes may be resorted to, provided only they lead to having a low density and a porous structure (Jean, col. 3, lines 24-27) and wherein the particulate iron material is applied over a support in the apparatus (Jean, col. 5 lines 44-46 and 55-56). Modified Jean however does not teach wherein providing the particulate iron material into the apparatus comprises, at least in part, additive manufacturing.
In a method of providing particulate iron material into an apparatus Gorji-2019 teaches that the particulate iron material provided by additive manufacturing is more porous than the virgin powder, which porosity will be transferred to the bulk of the particles (Gorji-2019, sections 3.6 and 4). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the providing the particulate iron material into the apparatus of modified Jean with the teaching of Gorji-2019 wherein providing the particulate iron material into the apparatus comprises, at least in part, additive manufacturing thereby increasing the porosity.
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean US2683182A (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022) in view of Harada CN1132949A (using machine English translation provided), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of in view of Isostatic Pressing Association “Advantages” http://ipa-web.org/advantages.html Date: 22 December 2019 (hereafter referred to as IPA-2019; cited in office action mailed 21 December 2023).
Regarding claims 37-38, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above including wherein applying pressure to the particulate iron material in the apparatus for a time period in an oxygen atmosphere (Jean, Col. 5 lines 6-9), the examiner notes that while Jean does not specify the atmosphere, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying pressure in an unspecified atmosphere is in an ambient atmosphere which comprises oxygen. Further, the examiner notes that the application of pressure at room temperature would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a cold pressing method. Jean further teaches other processes may be resorted to, provided only they lead to having a low density and a porous structure (Jean, col. 3, lines 24-27).
Jean however does not explicitly disclose further comprising applying heat to the particulate iron material as pressure is applied to the particulate iron material in the apparatus and wherein applying pressure and applying heat to the particulate iron material include a Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) process, a uniaxial hot pressing process, a hot roll compaction process, a hot briquetting process, or a hot forging process.
In a method for manufacturing metal components from metal particulates IPA-2019 teaches hot isostatic pressing is advantageous over cold pressing methods including improving the mechanical properties, and control over the grain structure and density, which are related to porosity.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Jean with the teaching of IPA-2019 wherein the method disclose further comprising applying heat to the particulate iron material as pressure is applied to the particulate iron material in the apparatus and wherein applying pressure and applying heat to the particulate iron material include a Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) process thereby improving the grain structure and density control to form a low density and porous structure.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean US2683182A (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022) in view of Harada CN1132949A (using machine English translation provided) and IPA-2019 (see above for full reference), as applied to claim 37 above, in view of Martin US20180214949A1 (cited in office action mailed 21 December 2023).
Regarding claim 39, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations of claim 37 as set forth above and further teaches providing a very high porosity particulate iron material in an apparatus and applying pressure and heat to form a porous structure (Jean, col. 1, lines 20-23; see claim 37) as this significantly improves performance (Jean, col. 1, lines 26-38), but is not directed toward to percentage of porosity with the particles of the particulate iron material after applying pressure and heat.
In a method of providing a metal precursor Martin teaches precursors, such as iron alone and/or with copper (Martin, [0071]), for later use with methods such as hot isostatic pressing (Martin, [0211]) and that the porosity of the precursor material may have a porosity from 0 to about 75% (Martin, [0221]) and that the porosity can be reduced by applying heat and pressure (Martin, [0235]) to increase durability of the structure.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the through routine experimentation to modify the method of modified Jean with the teaching of Martin wherein to form a porous structure, applying heat and pressure to a very high porosity particulate iron material, of up to 75%, wherein a greater than 50 volume percent microporosity within the particles of the particulate iron material is maintained after applying the pressure and the heat in order to increase the durability of the structure and significantly improve performance.
Claim(s) 40-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean US2683182A (cited in IDS filed 28 October 2022) in view of Harada CN1132949A (using machine English translation provided) and IPA-2019 (see above for full reference), as applied to claim 37 above, in view of Bhadeshia, H. K. D. H. "Cementite." International Materials Reviews 65.1 (2020): 1-27 (published 11 January 2019; hereafter referred to as Bhadeshia-2019; cited in office action mailed 21 December 2023).
Regarding claims 40-41 and 43-44, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and wherein a pulverulent iron is provided in the apparatus and when iron powder is employed the latter may advantageously be prepared by passing hydrogen through the ferric oxide obtained by roasting an iron salt at a relatively low temperature and reducing this oxide at a temperature which is also relatively low so as to prevent the iron thus obtained from re-crystallizing and sintering.
Modified Jean however does not explicitly teach wherein applying heat to the particulate iron material includes heating the particulate iron material in an oxygen atmosphere at a temperature from 700-900°C (claim 40), wherein the heat applied in the apparatus results in an elevated temperature in a range from about 300 to about 1000 °C (claim 41), wherein applying heat to the particulate iron material includes decomposing iron carbide to form iron and graphite (claim 43) and wherein the heat applied in the apparatus is at a temperature of 300-727°C (claim 44).
In a method of providing particulate iron material Otto teaches that to eliminate difficulties, such as iron from iron oxide sintering, treating pulverulent iron oxides by adding said iron oxides to a bed containing a large proportion of iron carbide, and introducing into said bed and keeping the temperature relatively low, using a reducing gas such as carbon monoxide, said gas serving to keep the bed in a fluidized state and to convert the greater part of the iron oxides into iron carbide, thereby preventing the pulverulent iron from sintering and becoming sticky (Otto, col. 2 lines 10-32). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particulate iron material of Jean with the teaching of Otto wherein part of the iron oxides are converted into iron carbides thereby improving the pulverulent iron from sintering and becoming sticky.
Bhadeshia-2019 teaches it has been known for some time that iron carbide (cementite/Fe3C) is metastable with respect to the equilibrium between graphite and α-iron for all temperatures below the eutectoid in the iron-carbon binary phase diagram (Bhadeshia-2019, section 13.1) and iron carbide decomposes into fine particles of iron and graphite at temperatures of 400-800 °C, where the oxygen partial pressure is controlled such that decomposition to iron and graphite remains dominant (Bhadeshia-2019, section 13.1), satisfying the limitation heating the particulate iron material in an oxygen atmosphere (claim 40), in order to create a porous product as the formation of graphite leads to an expansion in volume (Bhadeshia-2019, section 13.1). The temperature range taught by Bhadeshia-2019 overlaps significantly with the claimed ranges of from 700-900 °C (claim 40), about 300 to about 1000 °C (claim 41) and 300-727 °C (claim 44). The Courts have held that 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) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein applying heat to the particulate iron material includes heating the particulate iron material in an oxygen atmosphere at a temperature from 700-900°C, wherein the heat applied in the apparatus results in an elevated temperature in a range from about 300 to about 1000 °C, wherein applying heat to the particulate iron material includes decomposing iron carbide to form iron and graphite and wherein the heat applied in the apparatus is at a temperature of 300-727°C, thereby creating a porous structure.
Regarding claim 42, modified Jean teaches all of the limitations of claim 41, as set forth above including wherein the pressure applied in the apparatus is in a range from about 98 to 294 MPa (Jean, Col. 5 lines 6-9) which overlaps with the claimed range from about 1 to about 100 MPa.
The Courts have held that 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) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jean and Harada, alone or in any proper combination, have not been shown to have described or made obvious a method for iron electrode manufacture including "forming texture on [an] electrode, the texture of the electrode defining a predetermined pattern of recessed channels, and the electrode having increased density along recesses of the recessed channels relative to density of the electrode away from the recessed channels," as recited in the Applicant's independent claim 1, Harada Figs. 4-5, numeral 7 represents high-porosity and numeral 8 represents a low-porosity portion formed by the recesses 6, and its low porosity portion 8 is used as a tabless terminal mounting part and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Harada to have described the opposite of what the Office appears to assert the recessed areas of the rollers would create protruding non- compacted areas on the electrode having lower density, relative to density of the electrode at the recessed channels of the electrode. This is not persuasive.
As applicant has acknowledged that the final product of Harada comprises a low porosity and high porosity portions, with the portion compressed by the roller of Harada being the high porosity portion. As taught by Harada, the porosity of the compressed region becomes high only after a subsequent heat treatment (Harada, [0011], [0027-0030]), which is not relied upon for the rejection of the claimed invention as currently drafted, and as set forth above, this interpretation is in line with Instant [00153-00154] and Figs. 9-11, where the increased density portions are formed from the protruding portions of the rollers and the lower density portions are created by the recesses of the rollers. The examiner notes that while the specification deals with different types of density which can be used to determine properties, discussing the relationship as known in the art between density and porosity (Instant [0048], as one example), how the density can be adjusted advantageously (Instant [0134]) and Tables 1-4 provides what appears to be exemplary and non-limiting ranges of density and other properties obtained via the method(s) in applicant’s specification, which properties such as the type of density and associated values which the claimed invention encompasses, do not appear to be disclosed in the art that has been applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishii US20130266873A1 (discloses by using the metal mold press or the roll press, it is preferable to lower the porosity of the electrode active material layer by the pressure applying process),
Press Forming Method (evidences it is well known in the art wherein pressing the physical particles of the metal, thereby increasing the metal density).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 at 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723