Out 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 17, 2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received April 7, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: capitalizing “Volts” (not a proper noun) (line 24). Appropriate correction is required
Claims 2, 3, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: capitalizing “Lithium” (not a proper noun) (claim 2, line 3; claim 3, line 3; claim 11, line 4). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) not having ‘of the plurality of negative electrodes’ after “at least one negative electrode) (lines 1-2) and (2) not having ‘of the plurality of positive electrodes’ after “at least one positive electrode” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) not having ‘of the plurality of negative electrodes’ after “at least one negative electrode) (lines 1-2) and (2) not having ‘of the plurality of positive electrodes’ after “at least one positive electrode” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: having editors initials within the claim language (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: having editors initials within the claim language (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) capitalizing “Copper” (not a proper noun) (line 2) and (2) capitalizing “Aluminum” (not a proper noun) (line 3). Appropriate correction is required
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an active material” (line 19) and “different active material” (line 22). However, the generic active material encompasses different active materials, which leads to confusion as to whether or not the different active material is a subset of the active material. Claims 2-3 also have a recitation of “active material” which exacerbates the confusion. Since claims 2-20 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
The term “a cost effective replacement for batteries” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a cost effective replacement for batteries” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unsure what qualifies as being a cost effective replacement for batteries (i.e. what price needs to be met). Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0034037 (Zhang et al.).
Zhang et al. teach a supercapattery comprising:
a housing (package (para 0006); prismatic can (para 0027)) comprising:
a plurality of negative electrode sets comprising a plurality of negative electrode (electrodes connected to the negative pole) (figs. 2A-2B shows 1 set; applying the further provision of more electrodes, as seen in fig. 4B to either fig. 2A or 2B would yield a plurality of sets) (Note: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more electrodes to make multiple sets, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).);
a plurality of positive electrode sets comprising a plurality of positive electrodes (electrodes connected to the positive pole) (applying the further provision of more electrodes, as seen in fig. 4B to either fig. 2A or 2B would yield a plurality of sets);
a first porous separator layer placed in between (i) a first negative electrode in the plurality of negative electrodes, and (ii) a first positive electrode of the plurality of positive electrodes (separators said to exist between the electrodes, but not shown) (para 0010, 0027) (Note: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more electrodes to make multiple sets, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).); and
a second porous separator layer placed in between (i) a first group of electrodes, and (ii) a second group of electrodes, the first group of electrodes comprising the first negative electrode and the first positive electrode, and the second group of electrodes comprising a second negative electrode in the plurality of negative electrodes and a second positive electrode in the plurality of positive electrode (separators said to exist between the electrodes, but not shown) (para 0010, 0027),
wherein the first and the second negative electrodes each comprise a first current collector coated with a porous layer of an active material of variable thickness on both two sides of the first current collector (LTO anodes) (fig. 4B as applied to either fig. 2A or 2B) (para 0032 indicating a collector; para 0010 indicating porous layers), and
wherein the first positive electrode comprises a second current collector coated with a porous layer of different active materials on two sides of the second current collector (AC (activated carbon) on one side and LMO (lithium manganese oxide) on the other side) (fig. 4B as applied to either fig. 2A or 2B) (para 0027 defining the acronyms; para 0032 indicating a collector; para 0010 indicating porous layers).
Additionally, Zhang et al. teach Zhang et al. teaches the supercapattery exhibits an energy density of 20-200 Wh/kg (overlaps claimed 40 to 80 Wh/kg, thus rendering the range obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)) and a power density of 500-10,000 W/kg (i.e. 0.5-10 kW/kg) (overlaps claimed 2 to 5 kW/kg, thus rendering the range obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)) (para 0060). As the energy density and power density are rendred obvious, the supercapattery is suitable for both low current-long duration and high current-short duration applications (as claimed, due to the possession of the claimed energy density and power density).
Regarding the limitation that the supercapattery “can be assembled in commercially available capacitor cases having a diameter of between 25 mm to 180 mm thereby making the supercapattery low cost and/or cost effective” – the cited is not a concrete limitation (as being able to assembled “can” does not require the claimed casing.” Zhang et al. teaches of packaging (para 0006) and rolled assemblies of less than 1 mm in thickness (para 0010). Accordingly, Zhang et al.’s supercapattery can be assembled in commercially available capacitor cases having a diameter of between 25 mm to 180 mm thereby making the supercapattery low cost and/or cost effective (due to being rolled and having a dimension of less than 1 mm thick).
Zhang et al. do not teach (a) the second positive electrode has the same structure as the first positive electrode (a second current collector coated with a porous layer of different active materials on two sides of the second current collector), (b) wherein the supercapattery operates between a range of 2.7 to 4.4 volts with a high discharge rate capability ranging from 50 C to 70 C.
With respect to (a): As set forth above, Zhang et al. teaches a first positive electrode with a second current collector coated with a porous layer of different active materials on two sides of the second current collector. Zhang et al.’s second electrode is a typical battery cathode. Substituting the second positive electrode with the same structure as the first positive electrode would yield the predictable result of providing an operable cathode, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (cathode activity). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute the second positive electrode with the same structure as the first positive electrode, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing an operable cathode, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (cathode activity). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b), the claimed structure has been rendered obvious, thus it would be (i) expected or (ii) obvious that the structure operates under the same conditions (operates in a range of 2.7 to 4.4 volts with a high discharge rate capability ranging from 50 C to 70 C).
With respect to (i): regarding expectation, the structure is the same, thus the operations would be the same.
With respect to (ii): if it is shown that the operation is under different conditions as claimed, then any differences would be small, such that obviousness is maintained (as the structure claimed and rendered obvious are the same and at the very least should provide similar operations).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 2, Zhang et al. teach the active material is a lithium ion battery anode material (LTO is an anode material) (para 0011) (figs. 2A, 2B, 4B).
As to claim 3, Zhang et al. teach the different active materials are a lithium ion battery cathode material (LMO), and a supercapacitor activated carbon (AC), respectively (para 0027; figs. 2A, 2B, 4B).
As to claim 4, Zhang et al. teach that the layers on the current collectors are in a range of 5-150 µm (overlaps the claimed range of a thickness of a coating of each of the plurality of negative electrodes is in a range of 150 to 300 microns, and a thickness of a coating of each of the plurality of positive electrodes is in a range of 150 to 300 microns). “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 5, Zhang et al. teach the first porous separator layer electrically isolates the first negative electrode and the first positive electrode, wherein the second porous separator layer electrically isolates the first group of electrodes and the second group of electrodes and wherein each of the first and the second porous separator layers acts as a porous medium for ion movement (fig. 4B to either fig. 2A or 2B) (separators between all electrodes and porosity; para 0010) (electrical insulation; para 0045) (ion transport between separators; para 0059).
As to claim 6, Zhang et al. teach at least one negative electrode, at least positive electrode, the first porous separator layer, and the second porous separator layer are assembled together by stacking to produce an assembly with a rectangular shape (para 0010).
As to claim 7, Zhang et al. teach the at least one negative electrode, the at least one positive electrode, the first porous separator layer, and the second porous separator layer are assembled by winding to produce an assembly with a cylindrical shape (winding rectangles would result in this shape) (para 0010).
As to claim 8, Zhang et al. teach wherein the assembly is inserted into the housing and activated using a lithium cation (packaging; para 0006, 0013) (via electrolyte with lithium cations; para 0058, claim 1).
As to claim 9, Zhang et al. teach the lithium cation comprises an electrolyte composed of one or more lithium salts dissolved in a mixture of an organic solvent (para 0010, 0069) (capable of providing a required voltage window and operating temperature) (note: capability is achieved by providing the necessary material).
As to claim 10, Zhang et al. teach the first current collector is a copper foil (copper foil current collector known; para 0037), and wherein the second current collector is an aluminum foil (aluminum foil current collector known; para 0038).
As to claim 11, the limitations (wherein the supercapattery has storage behavior with 90 to 95% charge retention after 80 to 100 hours under open circuit conditions and exhibits lowest self-discharge characteristics equivalent to lithium-ion cells) are either (a) expected or (b) obvious (via being close to the claimed characteristics) (under the teachings of Zhang et al.).
With respect to (a): the expectation (of the charge retention and self-discharge characteristics) is that the structure is the same, thus the resulting characteristics would be the same.
With respect to (b): if it is shown the charge retention and self-discharge characteristics are not met, then any differences would be small, such that obviousness is maintained (as the structure claimed and rendered obvious are the same and at the very least should provide similar characteristics).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 12, the limitation (wherein the supercapttery can perform more than 1000 charge/discharge cycles at 30 to 50% depth of discharge) is either (a) expected or (b) obvious (via being close to the claimed characteristics) (under the teachings of Zhang et al.).
With respect to (a): the expectation (of the charge/discharge cycles at the claimed depth) is that the structure is the same, thus the resulting characteristics would be the same.
With respect to (b): if it is shown the charge/discharge cycles at the claimed depth is not capable of being met, then any differences would be small, such that obviousness is maintained (as the structure claimed and rendered obvious are the same and at the very least should provide similar characteristics).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 13, the limitation (wherein the supercapttery does not possess any memory effect and can perform one or more charge/discharge cycles under any state of charge) is either (a) expected or (b) obvious (via being close to the claimed characteristics) (under the teachings of Zhang et al.).
With respect to (a): the expectation (regarding memory affecting and performing one or more charge/discharge cycles under any state of charge) is that the structure is the same, thus the resulting characteristics would be the same.
With respect to (b): if it is shown that the supercapattery does not memory affecting and performing one or more charge/discharge cycles under any state of charge is not present, then any differences would be small, such that obviousness is maintained (as the structure claimed and rendered obvious are the same and at the very least should provide similar characteristics).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 15, Zhang et al. teach the supercapattery is configured to be used as a power source/storage device in one or more outer space devices selected from the group consisting of: one or more pyro actuators, one or more electromechanical actuators, and one or more satellite power storage systems (same structure rendered obvious, thus it is configured for use in the same devices as claimed), and wherein the supercapattery is a cost effective replacement for batteries in a device selected from the group consisting of: one or more portable handheld devices, one or more power tools, one or more electric vehicles, and one or more mobile/cellular devices (vehicle and non-vehicle uses appreciated (para 0004). Cost-effectiveness is interpreted to be met, as use in devices is set forth, barring further specification. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As to claim 16, the limitation (the supercapattery results in a 30 to 50% mass and volume advantage over compared to (i) an externally integrated lithium-ion battery and supercapacitor, or (ii) a supercapacitor alone) is either (a) expected or (b) obvious (via being close to the claimed characteristics) (under the teachings of Zhang et al.).
With respect to (a): the expectation (the supercapattery results in a 30 to 50% mass and volume advantage over compared to (i) an externally integrated lithium-ion battery and supercapacitor, or (ii) a supercapacitor alone) is that the structure is the same, thus the results would be the same.
With respect to (b): if it is shown the supercapattery results in a 30 to 50% mass and volume advantage over compared to (i) an externally integrated lithium-ion battery and supercapacitor, or (ii) a supercapacitor alone is met, then any differences would be small, such that obviousness is maintained (as the structure claimed and rendered obvious are the same and at the very least should provide similar characteristics).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 17, Zhang et al. teach the supercapattery uses electrodes of both lithium-ion cells and supercapacitors (figs. 2A, 2B, 4B), wherein a size and thickness of the electrodes, and a quantity of active materials, can be varied to derive desired capacity in Ah (arrangements in different combinations to achieve the desired capacity; para 0012-0013) (altering thickness; para 0046) (surface area chosen via current collector; para 0033).
As to claim 18, Zhang et al. teach the different active materials comprise lithium transition metal oxides (LMO; lithium manganese oxide; para 0038) that allow lithium ions to intercalate reversibly into a graphite electrode (para 0037, para 0048), thereby eliminating a pre-lithiation requirement of each of the plurality of negative electrodes, reducing process complexity, and resulting in easy device fabrication in a cylindrical configuration (as the structure is met, the eliminating, reducing, and resulting limitations are met).
As to claim 19, Zhang et al. teach wherein the assembly is inserted into the housing and activated using a lithium cation (packaging; para 0006, 0013) (via electrolyte with lithium cations; para 0058, claim 1).
As to claim 20, Zhang et al. teach the lithium cation comprises an electrolyte composed of one or more lithium salts dissolved in a mixture of an organic solvent (para 0010, 0069) (capable of providing a required voltage window and operating temperature) (note: capability is achieved by providing the necessary material).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2017/0141369 (Burke).
As to claim 14, the limitation (wherein the supercapattery can (i) perform in a wide temperature range of temperature between 5°C to 60°C (while maintaining the device performance after tests without any degradation in capacity or voltage) is either (a) expected or (b) obvious (via being close to the claimed characteristics) (under the teachings of Zhang et al.).
With respect to (a): the expectation (wherein the supercapattery can (i) perform in a wide temperature range of temperature between 5°C to 60°C (while maintaining the device performance after tests without any degradation in capacity or voltage) is that the structure is the same, thus the resulting characteristics would be the same.
With respect to (b): if it is shown that wherein the supercapattery can (i) perform in a wide temperature range of temperature between 5°C to 60°C (while maintaining the device performance after tests without any degradation in capacity or voltage is not present), then any differences would be small, such that obviousness is maintained (as the structure claimed and rendered obvious are the same and at the very least should provide similar characteristics).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Zhang et al. does not render obvious abilities to (ii) sustain vibration in a range of 10 to 15 grms, (iii) survive a shock up to 100 g and a vacuum level of 10-4 to 10-5 mbar, while maintaining the device performance after tests without any degradation in capacity or voltage).
However, Burke teaches of an electrochemical cell system that withstands the vacuum of space as well as extreme shock (1000s of Gs) and vibration (30-1000 GRMS) (more extreme than those claimed in (ii) and (iii)) (p5, (v) and (x)). The motivation for having an electrochemical system that withstands the vacuum of space as well as extreme shock (1000s of Gs) and vibration (30-1000 GRMS) (more extreme than the conditions claimed - (ii) sustain vibration in a range of 10 to 15 grms, (iii) survive a shock up to 100 g and a vacuum level of 10-4 to 10-5 mbar, while maintaining the device performance after tests without any degradation in capacity or voltage) is to be able to employ the cell in the harshest environment of space (p5, (y) and (z). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have an electrochemical system that withstands the vacuum of space as well as extreme shock (1000s of Gs) and vibration (30-1000 GRMS) (more extreme than the conditions claimed - (ii) sustain vibration in a range of 10 to 15 grms, (iii) survive a shock up to 100 g and a vacuum level of 10-4 to 10-5 mbar, while maintaining the device performance after tests without any degradation in capacity or voltage) in order to employ the cell in the harshest environment of space.
Conclusion
Note: US 2019/0260104 (Fan) is made of record herein but is not relied upon in the rejection. Fan teaches a battery/supercapacitor hybrid with bipolar cells in a stack (fig. 7; abs).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 ET.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759