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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 44, 59, 66 & 81-85 are amended. Claims 1-43, 54, 62, 74-80 & 86-88 are canceled. Claims 91-94 are newly added. Claims 44-43, 55-61, 63-73, 81-85 & 89-94 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 44-53, 55-61, 63-73 & 89-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns (US 2020/0106070 A1) in view of Whear (US 2018/0366710 A1) and evidenced by Krishnamoorthy (US 2017/0133650 A1).
Regarding claims 44-46, 49-53, 55, 57-58 & 89-90, Johns teaches a vehicle comprising a lead acid battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator; and an electrolyte comprising a metal sulfate such as zinc sulfate, aluminum sulfate or potassium sulfate, wherein the metal sulfate is present in the electrolyte at a concentration of 0 g/L to 10 g/L ([0028] & [0050]-[0052]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art readily understands that lead acid battery electrolytes typically have a specific gravity of 1.265 to 1.36 as evidenced by Krisnamoorthy ([0006]). Accordingly, typical lead acid battery electrolytes have a density of 1265 g/L to 1360 g/L such that when the metal sulfate is present in the electrolyte at a concentration of 0 g/L to 10 g/L would result in a metal sulfate concentration of 0% to 0.7% which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 0.25% to 0.5%.
Johns is silent as to (1) the separator having an acid-mixing rib profile and (2) wherein the lead sulfate crystals formed after 150 rounds of cycling of the lead acid battery have an average diameter in one dimension less than 1.1 microns, less than 1.0 microns, less than 0.95 microns, or less than 0.9 microns (claim 44) and an average diameter in one dimension of 0.4 microns to 0.9 microns (claim 46). Whear teaches a vehicle ([0242]) comprising a lead-acid battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator made of a microporous material and comprising an acid-mixing rib profile ([0042], [0050] & [0055]) which is immersion coated or spray coated with a coating of a metal sulfate such as barium sulfate in an amount of 1 g/sqm to 4 g/sqm, and an electrolyte comprising a metal sulfate such as barium sulfate ([0187]-[0191] & [0201]-[0203]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a separator having an acid-mixing rib profile in view of reducing or eliminating acid stratification as taught by Whear ([0055]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to coat the separator with a metal sulfate such as barium sulfate in an amount of 1 g/sqm to 4 g/sqm because it can combine with antimony to inactivate it and/or form a compound with it and/or cause it to drop down into the mud rest of the battery and/or prevent it from depositing onto the negative electrode as taught by Whear ([0201]). While Johns as modified by Whear is silent as to the above cited limitation 2), it is noted that modified Johns teaches a lead acid battery comprising an electrolyte, similarly to the present invention, including the claimed metal sulfate. Accordingly, the presently claimed average diameter in one dimension of lead sulfate crystals would be expected to read on the ranges recited in claims 44 & 46. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 47-48, Johns as modified by Whear teaches the lead acid battery of claim 44 but is silent as to a peak current density at least 20% lower than a lead acid battery having an electrolyte without a metal sulfate present (claim 47) and a hydrogen gassing current at -1.4V at least 70% lower than a lead acid battery having an electrolyte without the metal sulfate present (claim 48). However, as noted above, modified Johns discloses a lead acid battery electrolyte comprising a metal sulfate as described in the present invention. Accordingly, the properties recited in claims 47-48 would be expected to be present in modified Johns’s battery.
Regarding claim 56, Johns as modified by Whear teaches the lead acid battery of claim 45, wherein the metal sulfate comprises aluminum sulfate but is silent as to no or less than five tree branch-like or dendrite-like structure forming during cycling. However, since modified Johns teaches a lead acid battery having the claimed structure and electrolyte composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would similarly expect no or less than five tree branch-like or dendrite-like structure to grow during cycling.
Regarding claims 59-61, 63 & 65, Johns teaches a method of reducing the size of lead sulfate crystals in a lead acid battery during cycling, comprising: adding a metal sulfate such as zinc sulfate, aluminum sulfate or potassium sulfate at a concentration of 0% to 0.7% into an electrolyte solution in the lead acid battery ([0028] & [0050]-[0052]) but is silent as to 1) the separator comprising an acid-mixing rib profile and 2) wherein the lead sulfate crystals formed after 150 rounds of cycling of the lead acid battery have an average diameter in one dimension less than 1.1 microns, less than 1.0 microns, less than 0.95 microns, or less than 0.9 microns (claim 59) and wherein lead sulfate crystals formed during cycling of the battery have an average diameter in one dimension that is at least 60% smaller than lead sulfate crystals formed during cycling of battery without a metal sulfate present (claim 61). Whear teaches a vehicle ([0242]) comprising a lead-acid battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator made of a microporous material and comprising an acid-mixing rib profile ([0042], [0050] & [0055]) which is immersion coated or spray coated with a coating of a metal sulfate such as barium sulfate in an amount of 1 g/sqm to 4 g/sqm, and an electrolyte comprising a metal sulfate such as barium sulfate ([0187]-[0191] & [0201]-[0203]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a separator having an acid-mixing rib profile in view of reducing or eliminating acid stratification as taught by Whear ([0055]). While Johns as modified by Whear is silent as to the above cited limitation 2), it is noted that modified Johns teaches a lead acid battery comprising an electrolyte, similarly to the present invention, including the claimed metal sulfate. Accordingly, the presently claimed average diameter in one dimension of lead sulfate crystals would be expected to read on the ranges and amounts recited in claims 59 & 61. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 64, Johns as modified by Whear teaches the method of claim 60, wherein the metal sulfate comprises aluminum sulfate but is silent as to no or less than five tree branch-like or dendrite-like structure forming during cycling. However, since modified Johns teaches a lead acid battery having the claimed structure and electrolyte composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would similarly expect no or less than five tree branch-like or dendrite-like structure to form during cycling.
Regarding claims 66-71 & 73, Johns teaches a method of reducing the size of lead sulfate crystals in a lead acid battery during cycling, comprising: adding a metal sulfate such as zinc sulfate, aluminum sulfate or potassium sulfate at a concentration of 0% to 0.7% into an electrolyte solution in the lead acid battery ([0028] & [0050]-[0052]) but is silent as to 1) the separator comprising an acid-mixing rib profile and a metal sulfate, wherein at least some of the metal sulfate is released into the electrolyte solution; and 2) wherein the lead sulfate crystals formed after 150 rounds of cycling of the lead acid battery have an average diameter in one dimension less than 1.1 microns, less than 1.0 microns, less than 0.95 microns, or less than 0.9 microns (claim 66) and wherein lead sulfate crystals formed during cycling of the battery have an average diameter in one dimension that is at least 60% smaller than lead sulfate crystals formed during cycling of battery without a metal sulfate present (claim 70). Whear teaches a vehicle ([0242]) comprising a lead-acid battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator made of a microporous material and comprising an acid-mixing rib profile ([0042], [0050] & [0055]) which is immersion coated or spray coated with a coating of a metal sulfate such as barium sulfate in an amount of 1 g/sqm to 4 g/sqm, wherein the metal sulfate may further be dispersed within the electrolyte ([0187]-[0191] & [0201]-[0203]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a separator having an acid-mixing rib profile in view of reducing or eliminating acid stratification as taught by Whear ([0055]). While Johns as modified by Whear is silent as to the above cited limitation 2), it is noted that modified Johns teaches a lead acid battery comprising an electrolyte, similarly to the present invention, including the claimed metal sulfate. Accordingly, the presently claimed average diameter in one dimension of lead sulfate crystals would be expected to read on the ranges and amounts recited in claims 66 & 70. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 72, Johns as modified by Whear teaches the method of claim 69, wherein the metal sulfate comprises aluminum sulfate but is silent as to no or less than five tree branch-like or dendrite-like structure forming during cycling. However, since modified Johns teaches a lead acid battery having the claimed structure and electrolyte composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would similarly expect no or less than five tree branch-like or dendrite-like structure to form during cycling.
Regarding claims 91-93, Johns as modified by Whear teaches the lead acid battery of claim 44 and the methods claims 59 and 66, respectively, but does not explicitly teach the acid mixing rib profile aiding in the release of the metal sulfate into the electrolyte and the dispersal of the metal sulfate in the electrolyte. However, modified Johns teaches a separator having the claimed acid mixing rib profile with an electrolyte including the claimed metal sulfate. Accordingly, Johns’ modified separator would be expected to perform the presently claimed function of releasing the metal sulfate into the electrolyte and dispersing of the metal sulfate in the electrolyte as recited in claims 91-93.
Claims 81-85 & 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns (US 2020/0106070 A1) in view of Whear (US 2018/0366710 A1) and Mittal (US 2018/0047964 A1).
Regarding claims 81-85, Johns teaches a lead acid battery comprising a battery separator; and an electrolyte comprising a metal sulfate such as aluminum sulfate present in the electrolyte at a concentration of 0% to 0.7% ([0028] & [0050]-[0052]) but is silent as to the separator having an acid-mixing rib profile and a coating comprising aluminum sulfate in an amount of 1 gsm to 12 gsm (claim 81), of 3 gsm to 10 gsm (claim 82), of 5 gsm to 8 gsm (claim 83), of 6 gsm (claim 84). Whear teaches a lead-acid battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator made of a microporous material and comprising an acid-mixing rib profile ([0042], [0050] & [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a separator having an acid-mixing rib profile in view of reducing or eliminating acid stratification as taught by Whear ([0055]). Mittal discloses lead acid battery comprising a separator comprising a coating including a sulfate such as aluminum sulfate, wherein a weight percentage of the sulfate in the separator ranges from 1 wt% to 10 wt% ([0052] & [0083]-[0084]) and further wherein a basis weight of the separator can range from 80 gsm to 300 gsm in some embodiments ([0156]). Thus, when the weight percentage of the sulfate in a separator having a basis weight of 80 gsm to 300 gsm ranges from 1 wt% to 10 wt%, the resulting coating weight of the sulfate would necessarily range from 0.8 gsm to 30 gsm which renders obvious the amounts recited in claims 81-84. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to provide a separator with a coating including an aluminum sulfate in the amounts recited in claims 81-84 in view of reducing dendrite formation and thus extending the life of the battery as taught by Mittal ([0055]).
Regarding claim 85, Johns as modified by Whear and Mittal teaches the battery separator of claim 81 but is silent as to the separator exhibiting improved charge acceptance (60% SOC) over time. However, it is noted that modified Johns teaches a battery separator having substantially the same structure and composition as the claimed invention. Accordingly, the claimed property would be expected to be present in Johns’s modified separator.
Regarding claim 94, Johns as modified by Whear and Mittal teaches the lead acid battery of claim 81 but does not explicitly teach the acid mixing rib profile aiding in the release of the metal sulfate into the electrolyte and the dispersal of the metal sulfate in the electrolyte. However, modified Johns teaches a separator having the claimed acid mixing rib profile with an electrolyte including the claimed metal sulfate. Accordingly, Johns’ modified separator would be expected to perform the presently claimed function of releasing the metal sulfate into the electrolyte and dispersing of the metal sulfate in the electrolyte as recited in claim 94.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of John and Whear, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that Whear’s ribs which are used to enhanced acid mixing would not be applicable to John’s AGM separator which absorbs and holds the battery’s acid or electrolyte and prevents it from flowing freely inside the battery. Applicant thus concludes that there is not motivation to combine John’s separator structure which is built around electrolyte immobilization to Whear’s separator which is built around free acid redistribution. However, contrary to applicant’s assertions, it is noted that Whear’s separator including a layer with an acid-mixing ribbed profile which can be combined with another layer (laminated or otherwise) such as a fibrous mat/layer having enhanced wetting or holding or electrolyte properties ([0206]). The fibrous mat/layer can include glass fibers, or synthetic fibers, fleeces or fabrics made from synthetic fibers or mixtures with glass and synthetic fibers or paper, or any combination thereof ([0206]). Accordingly, the fibrous mat/layer which is combined the separator layer having the acid mixing rib profile is analogous to the AGM separator of Johns which is similarly composed of glass fibers woven into a mat (or provided as non-woven deposited fibers) ([0049]). As such, the teachings of Whear contradict applicant’s argument that a separator layer having an acid mixing rib profile can’t be combined or laminated with another AGM layer since Whear explicitly discloses that a layer having enhanced wicking or electrolyte holding properties can be combined or laminated with the inventive separator having an acid mixing rib profile. Moreover, the fibrous layer of Whear is not intended to absorb all of the electrolyte in the battery but rather retains a portion of the electrolyte and thus acts as electrolyte reservoir with the remaining portion of the electrolyte flowing freely in the rest of the battery. Therefore, the advantages of the acid-mixing rib profile on the porous membrane of Whear’s separator can be realized in combination with a laminated fibrous layer/mat which absorbs a portion of the electrolyte since not all of the electrolyte is retained in the fibrous layer/mat. With regards to applicant’s arguments that the cited art does not fairly teach or suggest an electrolyte with a metal sulfate concentration of 0.25% to 0.5%, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the above updated rejection of claim 44, Johns teaches a concentration of 0 g/L to 10 g/L for the metal sulfate in the electrolyte. The concentration of the metal sulfate in g/L in the electrolyte can be converted to %, using the density or the specific gravity of the electrolyte which typically ranges from 1.265 to 1.36 as evidenced by Krisnamoorthy ([0006]). Accordingly, typical lead acid battery electrolytes have a density of 1265 g/L to 1360 g/L such that when the metal sulfate is present in the electrolyte at a concentration of 0 g/L to 10 g/L would result in a metal sulfate concentration of 0% to 0.7% which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 0.25% to 0.5%. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 44-53, 55-61, 63-73, 81-85 & 89-94 stand rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights