DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first office action regarding application number 17/787,851, filed 08/06/2022.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claim 1-17 in the reply filed on 09/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 18-29 are withdrawn due to being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-17 have been fully considered in examination.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “separator” should state “the separator”.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: closing bracket is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “elements for increasing a surface area of the current collector” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “that was inserted into the pressed tube section before pressing”, which is a limitation regarding a method of making. Thus, since claim 2 is directed to a product, the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 2 is interpreted as “wherein the current collector has a carbon felt in the pressed tube section”.
Claim 3 recites, “after pressing and removal of a crimped edge of the pressed tube section”, which is a limitation regarding a method of making. Thus, since claim 3 is directed to a product, the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claim 2 is interpreted as, “wherein the current collector has a carbon felt in the pressed tube section that is laterally insertable into the pressed tube section”.
Claim 7 recites, “elements for surface enlargement” and “the group of punched through-holes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim. Claim 7 is interpreted as “ elements for increasing surface area” and “a group of punched through-holes”.
Claim 9 recites that “wherein the metal tufts of metal strips or wires are oriented so that local resistance gradients in the cathode chamber are minimized or uniformly distributed across the cross-section of the cathode chamber.” However, it is unclear how the metal tufts are oriented and there are no figures in the file wrapper to reference. Therefore, the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear as the orientation cannot be determined. Claim 9 is interpreted as “wherein the metal tufts are oriented and local resistance gradients are minimized or uniformly distributed across the cross section of the cathode chamber”.
Claim 9 recites “the entire cross-section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim. Claim 9 is interpreted as “an cross-section”.
Claims 11 and 12 recite “after the porous mixture of the cathode and the secondary electrolyte have been filled,” which is in regard to a method of making, such that the meets and bounds are unclear. Claim 11 is interpreted as “the unpressed tube section of the filler tube of the current collector is sealed with a cohesively bonded circular sheet metal blank or a deep-drawn part.” Claim 12 is interpreted as “the unpressed tube section of the filler tube of the current collector is crimped or hermetically sealed with a soldered or welded seam at the upper tube end of the filler tube.”
Claim 14 recites “wherein the pressed tube section of the current collector is pressed from at least three directions equally offset about the central axis” which is in regard to a method of making. Accordingly, the meets and bound of the claim, which is directed to a product, is unclear. Claim 14 is interpreted as wherein the pressed tube section forms a star-shaped cross-section.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the pressed tube section of the current collector is pressed by force effects in such a way that an interior space forming as a secondary electrolyte reservoir is just as large as a volume of the secondary electrolyte which is necessary for complete wetting of the current collector in the fully charged state of the battery”, which is a limitation regarding a method of making. Accordingly the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear, as claim 15 is directed to product. Claim 15 is interpreted as “an interior space forming as a secondary electrolyte reservoir is just as large as a volume of the secondary electrolyte which is necessary for complete wetting of the current collector in the fully charged state of the battery”.
Claim 16 recites “inserted into tangentially equidistant slots of the metal tube”, which is in regard to a method of making. Accordingly, the meets and bounds of the claim, which is directed to a product, is unclear. Additionally, “which tube” has insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 15 is interpreted as “characterised in that a metal tube is added below the pressed tube section of the current collector”.
Claim 17 recites, “which metal tube is produced from an equidistantly folded metal sheet and its axially symmetrical bending”, which is in regard to a method of making (“produced from”). Accordingly, the meets and bounds of the claim, which is directed to a product, are unclear. Additionally, it is further unclear if “which tube” is referring to the metal tube introduced in the claim or the pressed tube. Claim 17 is interpreted as, “wherein a metal tube with radial fins is added below the pressed tube section of the current collector”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramani (US-20150037645-A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
15. Regarding claim 1,
Ramani teaches an electrochemical sodium metal halide battery (Fig. 1, 100; [0005]), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, 104; [0037]) with a central axis (Fig. 1, longitudinal axis 102; [0039]),
a separator (Fig. 1, 130; [0037]) extending about the central axis 102 (see Fig. 1) of the housing 104 equidistantly from the housing (see Fig. 1, wherein 130 is disposed equidistant from 104 about the axis 102),
which separator, as a solid primary electrolyte [0040], electrically insulates [0040] and hermetically separates ([0036 and 0040], wherein a solid ceramic separator [0040] hermetically sealed cell [0036] results in hermetic separation between chambers) an anode chamber (Fig. 1, 120; [0036]) from a cathode chamber (Fig. 1, 110; [0036]) , but is permeable to sodium ions [0040],
a cathode (see [0038-0039], “granule bed…serve as positive electrode for cell”) filling (see [0063] via “fill ring”; see illustratively Fig. 6A) the cathode chamber 110 and consisting of a porous mixture [0045] of metal powder ([0045], “metal powder”) and metal halide powder granules (see [0045] “sodium halide granules”),
as well as a secondary electrolyte ([0045], “molten salt electrolyte”) of molten sodium metal halide salt ([0045], “NaAlCl4”) impregnating the cathode chamber and the porous mixture of the cathode (see [0045], “granule bed is impregnated, saturated, or wetted with the molten salt electrolyte such as NaAlCl4”),
and a cathode-side metallic current collector (Fig. 1, 140; [0039], wherein “nickel” is a metal) elongated about the central axis 102 (see Fig. 1) in the cathode chamber 110,
wherein: the current collector is a metal ([0039], wherein “nickel” is a metal) tube (Fig. 4B, wherein 330 is disposed in pressed portion of 140, wherein a mesh rod [0039] is hollow such that it reads as a tube) having a high electrical conductivity of σ > 106 S/m (wherein the conductivity of nickel is higher than 106 S/m, see https://matmake.com/properties/electrical-conductivity-of-nickel-alloys.html),
which is immersed [0045] in the porous mixture of granules of the cathode ([0045]; see Fig. 6A, illustratively) located in the separator 130 and in the secondary electrolyte [0045] and is designed as a pressed tube section (Fig. 4B, wherein 330 is disposed in pressed portion of 140, wherein a mesh rod [0039] is hollow such that it reads as a tube) which is narrowed on the inside (see Fig. 4B) in such a way that no granules of the cathode but only secondary electrolyte can penetrate (wherein Ramani is silent to any mention of granules entering the tube 140 and teaches all the positively recited structure of the narrowed tube),
and is provided on the outside with elements for increasing a surface area of the current collector ([0039], “mesh”, wherein a mesh current collector comprises holes along the outside surface which increase its surface area),
and the current collector has, above the immersed, pressed tube section (see Fig. 4B, pressed section of 140 defined above), an unpressed tube section (see Fig. 4B, unpressed upper portion of 4B above 330) as a filler tube (wherein any tube may be interpreted as a filler tube) for filling the cathode chamber (see [0063], describing “fill ring” in 4B indicating the intended use),
wherein at least one through- hole opening (Fig. 4B, through- hole opening above 330) the filler tube to the outside is provided at a transition from the pressed tube section to the unpressed tube section (see Fig. 4B, diagonal portions of 140) of the filler tube 140,
such that the filler tube 140 is configured to be used for filling the porous mixture of granules of the cathode into the cathode chamber only outside the pressed tube section (see Fig. 6A, illustratively, wherein cathode granules fill negative space thus including the through-hole in 140 seen in Fig. 4B) and for filling the entire cathode chamber 110 with secondary electrolyte [0045]. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 2,
Ramani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the current collector (Fig. 1 and 4A/4B, 140; [0059]) has a carbon ([0058], “carbon”) felt (Fig. 4A/4B, 330; [0051], “felt”) in the pressed ([0039], “bent”) tube section (Fig. 4B, wherein 330 is disposed in pressed portion of 140, wherein a mesh rod [0039] is hollow such that it reads as a tube) that was inserted into the pressed tube section before pressing (see [0053], “mounted between legs of cathode current collector 140” and the 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 3,
Ramani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the current collector 140 has a carbon ([0058], “carbon”) felt (Fig. 4A/4B, 330; [0051], “felt”) in the pressed tube section (Fig. 4B, wherein 330 is disposed in pressed portion of 140) that is laterally insertable (see Fig. 4D, wherein 330 is laterally insertable between legs of current collector 140; [0053]) into the pressed tube section (Fig. 4B, wherein 330 is disposed in pressed portion of 140) after pressing ([0039], bent, see 112(b) rejection above)
Regarding claim 4,
Ramani teaches electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the current collector has punched holes ([0039], other holes in “mesh”, wherein a mesh has a plurality of through-holes and the limitation punched is a product-by-process limitation wherein other holes in the mesh reads on the positively recited structure of “punched holes”) in the pressed ([0039], “bent”) tube section (Fig. 4B, wherein 330 is disposed in pressed portion of 140, wherein a mesh rod [0039] is hollow such that it reads as a tube) in the form of further through- holes ([0039], wherein other holes in the “mesh” are in the form of further through- holes).
Regarding claim 6,
Ramani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a commercially available ([0039], wherein nickel is a commercially available resource) nickel [0039] is used as the current collector (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 7,
Ramani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein, in the current collector 140, the elements for surface enlargement ([0037], “mesh”, see 112(b) rejection above) are formed with at least one element from the group of punched through-holes ([0037], wherein a “mesh” current collector comprises through- holes). The examiner notes that “punched” is a product-by-process limitation.
Regarding claim 13,
Ramani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a pressed ([0063], “bent”) tube ([0039], wherein a mesh rod may be a tube) section (Fig. 4B, bent narrowly adjacent portion of 140) of the current collector 140 is flat (Fig. 4B, wherein the pressed tube portion is depicted as flat).
Regarding claim 15,
Ramani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the pressed tube section of the current collector is pressed by force effects in such a way (see 112(b) rejection above) that an interior space forming as a secondary electrolyte reservoir ([0056-0057], wherein pores within 330 not blocked by granules are an interior space; [0045] “saturated” such that the pores form reservoir) is just as large as a volume of the secondary electrolyte which is necessary for complete wetting of the current collector in the fully charged state of the battery ([0057,wherein the electrolyte wicks the porous absorbent, see also [0045], wherein the porous absorbent is wetted and saturated, such that the entire free interior space is filled by and equal to a volume of the electrolyte that occupies it).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramani (US-20150037645-A1) in view of Vallance (US-20140038038-A1).
Regarding claim 5,
Ramani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), but fails to teach wherein the current collector has metal tufts of metal strips or wires in the pressed tube section, which are fastened in the through-holes and made of a metal not attacked by the electrochemical processes of the battery and having a conductivity comparable to that of the metal tube of the current collector. Vallance teaches wherein the current collector (Fig. 4, 150) has metal tufts of wires (Fig. 4, bristles 154) in the pressed tube section (Fig. 4, narrow portion of 150), which are not attacked by the electrochemical processes of the battery (wherein Vallance teaches a 154 as an extension of the current collector for means of increasing surface area and contact, wherein current collectors maintain electrical continuity during operation, thus sufficiently resistant to electrochemical degradation) teaches and having a conductivity ([0061], wherein the entire current collector is nickel such that they have the same conductivity) comparable to that of the metal tube of the current collector [0061]. Vallance fails to teach the metal tufts which are fastened in the through-holes. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to attach the metal tufts of Vallance to the mesh current collector of Ramani, which results in at least a portion of the metal tufts fastened in the through holes of the mesh, as Vallance teaches increasing the surface area of the current collector is advantageous [0060]. Further, Ramani teaches increasing the surface area of the is advantageous [0056] wherein attaching bristles can be considered a known technique to further achieve an increased surface area. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding claim 8,
Ramani in view of Vallance teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the metal tufts of metal strips or wires are made of nickel (Vallance, [0060]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramani (US-20150037645-A1) in view of Vallance (US-20140038038-A1) and Wu (US-20130149590-A1).
Regarding claim 9,
Ramani in view of Vallance teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 5, wherein the metal tufts of metal strips or wires are oriented (Vallance, Fig. 4, 154; see 112(b) rejection above) but fails to teach so that local resistance gradients in the cathode chamber are minimized or uniformly distributed across the cross-section of the cathode chamber. However, Wu teaches metal tufts of wires (Fig. 3b) so that local resistance gradients in the cathode chamber are uniformly distributed (see [0024], wherein increasing surface area decreases resistance and [0027], wherein the brush-like current collector decreases resistance, wherein lowering internal resistances results in a more uniform local resistance gradients) across the cross-section of the cathode chamber (see 112(b) rejection above, wherein the resistance is uniform across a horizontal cross-section of the cathode chamber along the projecting direction of the bristles). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the metal tufts of Vallance, which similarly increase surface area through the same means, also results in “local resistance gradients in the cathode chamber are uniformly distributed across the cross-section of the cathode chamber”.
Regarding claim 10,
Ramani in view of Vallance teaches electrochemical battery according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), but fails to teach wherein the metal strips or wires used in the metal tufts have a length which is selected to be smaller the higher the capacities of the battery to be achieved are and to be larger, up to the separator [at maximum, the higher the powers to be extracted from the battery are. However, it is well understood that shorter conduction paths generally reduce resistance, and improve capacity, wherein longer path lengths tend to increase resistance thus requiring more power be extracted from the battery (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/conductive-path), as demonstrated by the bristle-length and capacity relationship disclosed in Wu (Fig. 3b, metal wire; see [0024] for length relationship). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the length of the metal wires in order to arrive at a higher capacity/efficiency or to require more power from the cell, as Wu demonstrates this relationship is generally understood within the art, and provides a specific example thereof with metal wire length.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramani (US-20150037645-A1) in view of Coetzer (US-5972533-A).
Regarding claim 11,
Rumani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but is silent to wherein, after the porous mixture of the cathode and the secondary electrolyte have been filled, the unpressed tube section of the filler tube of the current collector is sealed with a cohesively bonded circular sheet metal blank or a deep-drawn part. Coetzer teaches wherein, after the porous mixture of the cathode and the secondary electrolyte have been filled (see 112(b) rejection above), wherein the unpressed tube section (Fig. 1, 38/48; see col. 5, lines 0-15) of the filler tube (Fig. 1, 26; see col. 5, lines 0-11) of the current collector (Fig. 1, 46; see col. 5, lines 0-11) is sealed with a deep-drawn part (Fig. 1, 22; col. 4, lines 60-64, “A pressed nickel lid 20 for the casing 12 is sealingly thermocompression-bonded to the upper surface of the collar 18 at 22”, wherein 22 is a flat sheet metal component formed into a cylindrical cavity and thus is a deep drawn part, see https://accurateforming.com/deep-drawing-process-explained/). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to seal the unpressed tube by thermocompression-bonding with a deep drawn part, as Coetzer suggests this is a suitable method sealing in the art of molten salt batteries.
Regarding claim 12,
Kumar in view of Rumani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein, after the porous mixture of the cathode and the secondary electrolyte have been filled (see 112(b) rejection above), but fails to teach the unpressed tube section of the filler tube of the current collector is crimped or hermetically sealed with a soldered or welded seam at the upper tube end of the filler tube. Coetzer teaches the unpressed tube section (Fig. 1, 38/48; see col. 5, lines 0-15) of the filler tube (Fig. 1, 26; see col. 5, lines 0-11) of the current collector (Fig. 1, 46; see col. 5, lines 0-11) is crimped (see col. 5, lines 0-11) with a welded seam(see col. 5, lines 0-11) at the upper tube end of the filler tube. (Fig. 1, 40; see col. 5, lines 0-11). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to seal the upper end of the tube by crimping with a welded seam, as Coetzer suggests this is a suitable method of sealing in the art of molten salt batteries
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Ramani (US-20150037645-A1) and Wu (US-20130149590-A1).
Regarding claim 14,
Rumani teaches an electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach to a star-shaped cross section. Wu teaches wherein the pressed tube section of the current collector is pressed from at least three directions equally offset about the central axis (see 112(b) rejections above) to form a star-shaped cross-section (see Fig. 3b, wherein a transverse cross section of that structure would form more than five radially distributed points, and thus is star-shaped). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the metal bristles of Wu into the pressed tube section of Kumar, resulting in a star-shaped transverse cross section, as Wu teaches this structure to decrease resistance and improve discharging capability [0027].
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramani (US-20150037645-A1) in view of Johnson (US-20170214106-A1).
Regarding claim 16,
Ramani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach characterised in that a metal tube is added below the pressed tube section of the current collector, which metal tube is fitted with radial fins inserted into tangentially equidistant slots of the metal tube. Johnson teaches a metal tube (Fig. 2, 9) is added below (Fig. 2, wherein 9 extends below 4) a pressed tube section (Fig. 2, 4; wherein tube that holds 16 has a narrower and thus pressed region around 4) of the current collector (Fig. 7, 74), which metal ([0038], “silver”) tube (Fig. 7, 8) is fitted with radial fins (Fig. 2/7, 10; [0043]) inserted into tangentially equidistant slots of the metal tube (see 112(b) rejection above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the pressed tube of Ramani by adding a tube section with radial fins below the pressed tube, as Johnson suggests that impeller shape functions to maintain distribution of electrolyte and better manage the reaction chemistry [0042-0044].
Regarding claim 17,
Kumar in view of Rumani teaches the electrochemical battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein a metal tube with radial fins is added below the pressed tube section of the current collector, which metal tube is produced from an equidistantly folded metal sheet and its axially symmetrical bending. Johnson teaches wherein a metal ([0038], “silver”) tube (Fig. 7, 8) with radial fins (Fig. 7, 10) is added below a tube section (Fig. 1, 4), of the current collector (Fig. 7, 74 ; [0050]), which metal tube is produced from an equidistantly folded metal sheet and its axially symmetrical bending (see 112(b) rejection above). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the pressed tube of Ramani by adding a tube section with radial fins below the pressed tube, as Johnson suggests that impeller shape functions to maintain distribution of electrolyte and better manage the reaction chemistry [0042-0044].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20090291365-A1, relevant to various cross-section shapes such as star-shaped cross sections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights