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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 6th 2025 has been entered. Claim 18 remains pending in the application. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered however are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. New rejections follow.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visco et al. US 2011/0269007 A1 in further in view of McCartney US 4,601,961.
Regarding Claim 18, Visco discloses a water activated alkali metal battery [0011] for deployment in a water body such as seawater [0013], wherein the water activated alkali metal battery comprises an anode and a cathode [0011] and the anode is lithium based [0015]. Visco further discloses that the battery is activated upon addition of water (i.e. upon deployment in a waterbody) [0012]. Thus, Visco discloses a lithium water activated reserve battery assembly for use in a waterbody.
Visco further discloses that each electrode include a frame member that is placed outside the perimeter of the electrodes to keep them spaced apart [0070]. Thus, Visco discloses that each electrode has a frame member [0071]. This is further shown in Annotated Figure 5b below:
PNG
media_image1.png
309
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5b
Visco discloses that the battery has an interelectrode gap that receives seawater, which activates the cell [0106]. Visco discloses that prior to activation, the interelectrode gap does not contain any seawater initially and further contains a salt that dissolves or is otherwise removed from the cell during activation in the waterbody [0107], thus creating a void upon activation and therefore increasing the interelectrode gap. Thus, Visco discloses that the interelectrode gap is increased upon deployment in the waterbody.
Visco discloses that the battery can have a multi-cell stack wherein the battery is comprised of a plurality of electrodes stacked on top of each other [0158]. As shown in Figure 14, Visco discloses a multi-cell battery stack comprising four anodes and four cathodes (Figure 14) [0158], and further discloses that the cells used in the multi-cell stack are identical to those used in an individual cell [0035], thus Visco discloses a multi-cell stack having two or more lithium anodes and three or more cathodes. Visco discloses that a multi-cell stack is capable of efficient operation at voltages greater than that of individual cells [0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the multi-cell stack embodiment of Visco for use with the framing members in the earlier mentioned embodiments to achieve a battery with efficient operation at greater voltages.
Visco is silent as to a specific deployment method for the water activated battery. Further, Visco fails to disclose a suspension mechanism configured and interfaced with the framing member of each electrode such that upon deployment, the suspension mechanism causes the inter-electrode gap to expand.
McCartney discloses a method of deployment of a water activated battery into a waterbody using a suspension mechanism for deployment and activation (float attached to rolled or compressed battery that causes the battery to expand and unroll upon deployment) [Column 3 Lines 60-66]. McCartney discloses that the float is attached to the edge of the battery with epoxy [Column 4 Lines 15-17]. McCartney discloses that the battery is initially in a compact state prior to deployment [Column 3 Lines 53-55], and then the suspension mechanism (float) causes the battery to expand or unroll for activation of the battery [Column 3 Lines 65-66].
McCartney discloses that this configuration allows for a high energy density and safe seawater battery with low-cost and long lifespan [Column 1 Line 67-Column 2 Line 2].
As Visco does not specifically teach a particular deployment method, one skilled in the art would refer to the related prior art, such as McCartney, to select an appropriate way of deploying Visco’s battery as needed for it to function. Thus, it would have been obvious to adapt McCartney’s deployment method (i.e. float/buoy suspension mechanism) to Visco’s battery.
Thus, modified Visco discloses a lithium water-activated reserve battery for use in a waterbody that has an alternating electrode stack structure with two or more lithium anodes and three or more cathodes, a peripheral framing member on each electrode, and with the modification of McCartney, a suspension mechanism configured and interfaced with the framing member of each electrode (via epoxy, as suggested by McCartney). McCartney discloses that the suspension mechanism (float or buoy) causes the battery to expand for activation upon deployment, and Visco discloses that upon activation the interelectrode gap increases (as mentioned above) and additionally Visco discloses that the electrodes are each connected to separated framing members and not rigidly connected to each other. Thus modified Visco with the modification of McCartney’s suspension mechanism, discloses a suspension mechanism that causes the battery to expand for activation upon deployment, which would be capable of causing the electrodes to move away from each as they are not rigidly connected to each other, thus causing the interelectrode gap to expand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Visco does not disclose that the interelectrode gap expands upon deployment, and rather the dissolution of the salt in the interelectrode region creates a void between the electrodes as opposed to the interelectrode gap dimensionally changing. Examiner respectfully points out as stated in the rejection above, that modified Visco discloses a battery assembly that is capable of having the interelectrode gap expand upon deployment, as the suspension mechanism of McCartney causes the battery assembly to expand upon deployment, and the electrode assembly of Visco (referring to Annotated Figure 5b) has electrodes that are not rigidly connected to each other. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 December 2025