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
In response to the amendment received on 02/05/2026:
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, and 15-23 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 have been amended. Claims 16-23 stand withdrawn.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes the claim objection set forth to claim 1 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 6, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanassova et al (US 20120248383 A1) in view of Boden et al (US 20090325068 A1) in view of Wall et al (Growth Mechanisms of Nano-to Micro-Sized Lead Sulfate Particles, as given in the 10/21/2022 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Atanassova discloses in an initial, discharged state, a mixture consisting of a particulate carbon material and PbSO4 crystals, and optionally one or more materials selected from the group consisting of a solid expander additive, baryte group inorganic crystals, polymer fibers, and glass fibers (paste for a negative plate of a lead-acid battery; paste includes a lead-based active material (a) and an expander mixture comprising carbon (b), barium sulfate (c), and a lignosulfonate (d); the at least two of the components of (a) to (d) can be present in the paste as composite particles, P11; the composite particles can be “agglomerates of carbon particles having at least part of said lead-based active material, especially lead oxide, lead sulfate, or a mixture thereof, disposed between and on the surface of the carbon particle agglomerates”, P13; given Atanassova says “lead oxide, lead sulfate, or a mixture”, one of ordinary skill in the art could choose the lead-based active material to be lead sulfate alone; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a paste is a type of mixture; therefore, the mixture (paste) of Atanassova can include carbon particles, lead sulfate, barium sulfate (baryte group inorganic crystal or solid expander additive), and a lignosulfonate (solid expander additive); see entire disclosure and especially P11, 13; based on the disclosure of Atanassova, it appears the paste is to be added to a grid/plate and cured/dried before charging/discharging (P22), therefore, this paste is in an initial, discharged state).
Atanassova further discloses their invention to be used within a negative lead-acid battery plate and lead-acid battery (P16), however, Atanassova does not explicitly describe an electrode including the mixture wherein the mixture is supported on a conductive grid framework consisting of lead or a conductive lead alloy.
In a similar field of endeavor, Boden teaches negative plates of lead-acid batteries are usually produced by preparing a paste with an expander additive, and then applying this battery paste to electrically conducting lead alloy structures known as grids to produce plates (P4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Boden and applied the paste of Atanassova on a lead alloy grid to provide an electrode for a lead-acid battery, given Atanassova desires to use their paste for a negative lead-acid battery plate and lead-acid battery, and Boden teaches negative plates of lead-acid batteries include a paste having an expander additive applied to a lead alloy grid.
However, modified Atanassova does not meet the limitation wherein the PbSO4 crystals in the paste are tabular and/or diamond-shaped.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wall teaches PbSO4 is a key component in the charging and discharging of lead acid batteries (see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract). Wall discloses PbSO4 crystals formed from a sulfate solution mixed with methanol after 10 s of stirring (see Fig. 8 provided below). Wall teaches methanol performed better than water and acetone as a preserving again of the PbSO4 (see entire disclosure and especially the Conclusion).
As seen in Figure 8 below, the PbSO4 crystals are tabular and/or diamond-shaped.
PNG
media_image1.png
908
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the PbSO4 crystals of modified Atanassova to be the PbSO4 crystals formed and as seen in Fig. 8 of Wall, given Wall teaches these are known PbSO4 crystals that can be formed, Wall teaches discloses PbSO4 is a key component in the charging and discharging of lead acid batteries, and the selection of a known material (such as a known lead sulfate particle) which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Further, the PbSO4 crystals of Wall are taught for form consistently within the 30-50 nm range (see entire disclosure and especially the Conclusion).
Given the PbSO4 crystals of Wall are taught for form consistently within the 30-50 nm range, the average particle size of the PbSO4 crystals of Wall, and such modified Atanassova, would be in the range of 30-50 nm. This range lies within the range of 10 nm to 2 µm claimed.
Further, since Wall teaches the PbSO4 crystals form consistently within the specified range of 30 – 50 nm, it can be said that at least 80% (100%) of the PbSO4 crystals of Wall would have a particle size within this claimed range of 30 – 50 nm.
Therefore, modified Atanassova, in utilizing the PbSO4 crystals of Wall, would meet the limitation wherein at least 80% of the PbSO4 crystals in the mixture have a particle size within ±20% of the average particle size, in the initial discharged state of the electrode.
Regarding the limitation “as determined by dynamic light scattering and particle imaging using a transmission electron microscope”, claim 1 is a product claim not a method claim. While the particle size listed by Wall is not disclosed to be found using the same method as claimed, the claim is directed to a product and the average particle size of the crystals found would be approximately the same regardless of the method utilized.
Regarding claim 3, Atanassova discloses wherein the particulate carbon material is at least one material selected from the group consisting of carbon black, graphite, free-standing graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, single-walled carbon nanotubes, and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (graphite, carbon black; see entire disclosure and especially P12, 36).
Regarding claims 10-11, Atanassova discloses lead-acid batteries generally comprising a positive plate, a negative plate, and an electrolyte comprising aqueous sulfuric acid (P3). Atanassova discloses the plates are held in a parallel orientation and electrically isolated by porous separators to allow free movement of charged ions (P3). Atanassova discloses the positive plate contains lead dioxide (PbSO2) (P3).
Atanassova further discloses their invention to be used within a negative lead-acid battery plate and lead-acid battery (P16)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the disclosure of Atanassova and provided the electrode of modified Atanassova in a lead-acid electrochemical cell with a counter electrode with a proton-conductive separator therebetween, wherein the electrode, counter electrode, and separator are immersed in an electrolyte comprising aqueous sulfuric acid, and wherein the counter electrode comprises PbSO2, given Atanassova teaches their invention to be used within a negative lead-acid battery plate and lead-acid battery, and Atanassova teaches a lead acid battery includes a positive plate, negative plate, separator allowing movement of ions, and sulfuric acid electrolyte .
Claims 5-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanassova et al (US 20120248383 A1) in view of Boden et al (US 20090325068 A1) in view of Wall et al (Growth Mechanisms of Nano-to Micro-Sized Lead Sulfate Particles, as given in the 10/21/2022 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chen et al (US 20020124388 A1).
Regarding claims 5-8, modified Atanassova does not meet the limitation wherein the wherein the PbSO4 crystals have an average particle size in the range of 140 nm to 160 nm (claim 5), 180 nm to 220 nm (claim 6), 250 nm to 290 nm (claim 7), or 1 µm to 1.4 µm (claim 8) in the initial discharged state of the electrode.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chen teaches optimizing the size and structure of tetrabasic lead sulfate crystals can have a large impact upon formation of the active material of the positive plate and mechanical strength and cycling life of the positive plates (P7).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that from the teaching of Chen, the size/structure lead sulfate crystals are a result-effective variable based upon the desired mechanical strength and cycling life of positive plates in a lead acid battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized, through routine experimentation, the average particle size of the PbSO4 crystals of modified Atanassova in order to reach a skilled artisan’s desired mechanical strength and cycling life of a positive plate in a lead acid battery. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanassova et al (US 20120248383 A1) in view of Boden et al (US 20090325068 A1) in view of Wall et al (Growth Mechanisms of Nano-to Micro-Sized Lead Sulfate Particles, as given in the 10/21/2022 IDS) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Cahana et al (WO 2014141279 A1, using the previously provided document from PE2E).
Regarding claim 12, modified Atanassova does not meet the limitation wherein the sulfuric acid has a concentration in the range of about 1 to about 5 M.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cahana teaches a lead-acid battery comprising a dilute aqueous sulfuric acid solution, comprising 3 to 5M sulfuric acid; the solution provides the sulfate ions necessary for the discharge reactions (Page 7 of document provided).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Cahana and selected the sulfuric acid of modified Atanassova to be 3 to 5M sulfuric acid, given Cahana teaches it is a known molarity for sulfuric acid used in a lead-acid battery, it aids in providing sulfate ions necessary for discharge reactions, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanassova et al (US 20120248383 A1) in view of Boden et al (US 20090325068 A1) in view of Wall et al (Growth Mechanisms of Nano-to Micro-Sized Lead Sulfate Particles, as given in the 10/21/2022 IDS) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Rouhani (US 5580675 A).
Regarding claim 15, modified Atanassova does not meet the limitation wherein two or more electrochemical cells of claim 10 are provided within a lead-acid battery and the two or more electrochemical cells are connected in series, in parallel, or in both series and parallel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Rouhani teaches standard lead-acid batteries generally include a plurality of cells built into a single battery with the cells connected in series to produce the desired voltage (C15 / L31-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Rouhani and provide two or more electrochemical cells of modified Atanassova as described in claim 10 connected in series to form a lead-acid battery, given Rouhani teaches this can produce a lead-acid battery of a desired voltage.
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 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 Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights