DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted January 25, 2023, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Specification
5. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 2 and 4 respectively recite that a distance from the second vertical frame bone becomes 2/5 and 3/5 of the sitance between the pair of vertical frame bones but these values are not recited in the instant disclosure.
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.
6. Claim 6 and 9-12 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.
Claims 6 and 9-12 recite “the side in the horizontal direction” and “the side in the vertical direction” but these sides lack antecedent basis and it is unclear which sides are being limited since there are four sides to a rectangle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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 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.
7. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee KR2016-0065622, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee KR2016-0065622.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a liquid lead storage battery comprising a positive electrode plate including a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture, wherein: the positive electrode current collector includes a grid-like substrate with a rectangular shape and a lug 110 continuous with the grid-like substrate (para 0030); the positive electrode mixture is held in the grid-like substrate (para 0029); the grid-like substrate includes a frame bone forming four sides of the rectangular shape (121 to 124, para 0029), and a plurality of intermediate bones connected to the frame bone and present inward of the frame bone; the frame bone includes an upper frame bone 121 located on an upper side of the grid-like substrate and extending in a horizontal direction, a lower frame bone 122 located on a lower side of the grid-like substrate and extending in the horizontal direction, and a pair of vertical frame bones 123/124 extending in a vertical direction; the lug 110 protrudes upward from a position offset from a center of the upper frame bone in a longitudinal direction to a side closer to either of the pair of vertical frame bones (closer to 123); the plurality of intermediate bones includes a plurality of vertical intermediate bones 131/132 extending from the upper frame bone toward the lower frame bone side or from the lower frame bone toward the upper frame bone side (paras 0028, 0034-0036), and a plurality of horizontal intermediate bones 141-144 extending from one of the pair of vertical frame bones toward the other side or from the other of the pair of vertical frame bones toward the one side (paras 0042-0048); at least part of a plurality of the vertical intermediate bones present in a range between a center between the pair of vertical frame bones and a first vertical frame bone being the vertical frame bone on a side where the lug is not present, are first vertical intermediate bones extending from the lower frame bone side toward the upper frame bone side while obliquely expanding from each other, and directly reaching the upper frame bone; the vertical intermediate bones extending from the lower frame bone side toward the upper frame bone side while obliquely expanding from each other all directly reach the upper frame bone since e.g. the vertical intermediate bone on the right is formed of multiple segments of vertical intermediate bone (see annotated Fig below); angles formed by the first vertical intermediate bones and the upper frame bone on the first vertical frame bone side are less than 90° (see annotated Fig); and connection points of the first vertical intermediate bones to the upper frame bone are present only in the range (see entire disclosure and especially Fig. 2 and paras 0028, 0034-0036, 0042-0048).
If it is not inherent that the range of Lee begins at “a center” between the pair of vertical frame bones, then it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the plate such that the positive electrode plate of the battery of Lee is designed such that the range begins at a center of the plate to ensure ideal electrode active material distribution around the lug since Lee teaches that this is an important consideration (para 0062). 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.). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
PNG
media_image1.png
787
1046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Lee describes connection points of the first vertical intermediate bones to the upper frame bone being present only in the range, said range being present only up to a position where a distance from the first vertical bone becomes a fraction of a distance between the pair of vertical frame bones as described and shown above. Lee does not specifically recite wherein the fraction of the distance is 2/5. However, the claim recites “a distance between the pair of vertical frame bones” which can be any distance designated by the skilled artisan and does not mean a specific distance, such as the total distance between said pair of vertical frame bones. Accordingly, the range is inherently 2/5 of a particular distance between the vertical frame bone pair.
Regarding Claims 3-4 and 7, Lee discloses second vertical intermediate bones (see annotated Fig above) extending from the upper frame bone toward the lower frame bone while obliquely expanding from each other such that at least part of the plurality of vertical intermediate bones in a range between the center (shown previously) and a second vertical frame bone (being on the lug side), said range being present only up to a position where a distance from the second vertical bone becomes a fraction of a distance between the pair of vertical frame bones as described and shown above. Lee does not specifically recite wherein the fraction of the distance is 2/5. However, the claim recites “a distance between the pair of vertical frame bones” which can be any distance designated by the skilled artisan and does not mean a specific distance, such as the total distance between said pair of vertical frame bones. Accordingly, the range is inherently 2/5 of a particular distance between the vertical frame bone pairs.
Regarding Claims 5 and 8, the skilled artisan would be capable of drawing lines extending the first vertical intermediate bones downward below the lower fame bone converging to a single point and lines extending the second vertical intermediate bones above the upper frame bone converging to a single point, since this requires only a decision to draw lines and does not actually have any structural significance.
Regarding Claims 6 and 9-12, Lee discloses in para 0032 that the rectangular shape forming the frame bone is a shape in which the sides in the horizontal direction are longer than the sides in the vertical direction since the length of the upper and lower frames 121/122 are 142 mm while the length of the side frames 123/124 are 114 mm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Buckethal US Patent 4118553, Mrotek US Patent 5308719, Schaeffer US PG Publication 2012/0047719, Takahashi JP2002042821, Kawaguchi JP2014197456, and Kawaguchi JP2017183278 all teach similar structures to what is claimed (see figures) but lack the specifically recited variation of oblique expansion between intermediate bones from both the top and bottom frame bones.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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 Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729