DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/074,864, filed 12/05/2022.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-30 and 38, in the reply filed on 09/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 31-37 are withdrawn from consideration for being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-30 and 38 have been fully considered in examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 5, 27, 28, and 38 refer to “conductive plastic resin”. As evidenced by the specification [0082] and claim 5, the conductive plastic resin comprises polyolefin or a fluoropolymer, which are both inherently non-conductive, and the conductivity is attributed to conductive carbon within the resin [0085]. Therefore, the term “conductive plastic resin” is interpreted as a resin compounded with other conductive materials rather than a property inherent to the plastic resin itself.
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 2-14, 16, 23, and 27-30 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 “the anode”, however; the anode has not been properly introduced. Claim 2 is interpreted as the terminal anode assembly. Further, claim 2 recites “the other”; however, “the other” has no antecedent basis. Claim 2 is interpreted as “and the anode assembly is received in the of the first terminal slot or the second terminal slot.”
Claim 10 recites “conductive plastic resin”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim. Claim 10 is interpreted as “the conductive plastic resin”.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the carbonaceous conductive diluent comprises metal”, wherein the scope is unclear as the term carbonaceous seems to limit the diluent to primarily carbon-based materials, excluding metal. Thus, it is unclear whether the carbonaceous diluent has, in addition, metal—or if metal is an alternative material for the carbonaceous conductive diluent. Claim 11 is interpreted as “wherein the conductive diluent comprises carbonaceous graphite or metal”. Accordingly, claim 10, which introduces the “carbonaceous conductive diluent” is similarly interpreted as “conductive diluent”.
Claims 13 recites “the polymer”; however, the polymer has not been properly introduced. It is unclear whether “the polymer” refers to the conductive polymer of the bipolar electrode assembly or non-conductive polymer of the housing. The limitation “the polymer” of claim 14 is interpreted as the conductive plastic as compounding with carbon introduces conductivity.
Claim 14 recites “the polymer”; however, the polymer has not been properly introduced. It is unclear whether “the polymer” refers to the conductive polymer of the bipolar electrode assembly or non-conductive polymer of the housing. The limitation “the polymer” of claim 14 is interpreted as the non-conductive plastic in accordance with [0007] of the instant specification which describes the structural filler associated with the non-conductive polymer.
Claim 16 recites “a binder” but fails to distinguish it from the binder claimed in claim 15. Claim 16 is interpreted as the binder of claim 15.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the perimeter support cooperates with the housing to form the liquid seal is formed between adjacent electrode assemblies”. It is unclear whether the support cooperates to form the liquid seal, the liquid seal is formed between adjacent electrode assemblies, or both. Claim 23 is interpreted as both.
Claims 27 and 28 recite “conductive plastic resin” but does not distinguish this from the conductive plastic resin claimed in claim 1. Thus, it is unclear if this is a new conductive plastic resin or the same conductive plastic resin of claim 1. Claim 27 and 28 are interpreted as “the conductive plastic resin”.
Claim 30 recites “the seal material”
Additionally, claims 3-13 and 29 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly (US-20090081541-A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Kelly teaches a static (Fig. 1, wherein battery 10 is stationary and thus static) bipolar [0013] battery (Fig. 1, 10; [0013]) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, 12; [0013]) formed of a non-conductive ([0013], wherein thermoplastic polymers are not conductive) plastic material ([0013], “thermoplastic polymer”);
a terminal cathode assembly (Fig. 1, 30; [0029]);
a terminal anode assembly (Fig. 1; 32; [0029]);
and at least one bipolar electrode assembly (Fig. 1, assembly of bipolar electrodes 20; [0029]);
the at least one bipolar electrode assembly 20 comprising a conductive ([0015], see claim interpretation above) plastic ([0015], “polymer”, wherein a polymer is plastic) resin (Fig. 1, 22; [0015], “polymer matrix”, wherein all polymer matrices are formed with polymer resin, see https://compositeskn.org/KPC/Glossary:Resin#:~:text=For%20polymer%20matrix%20composites%20(PMCs,main%20groups:%20thermosets%20and%20thermoplastics.)
formed into a sheet (Fig. 1, wherein 22 has a sheet shape),
the conductive plastic resin 22 having a carbon material (Fig. 1, 23; [0020], “carbon”) formed thereon (Fig. 1, wherein 23 is formed on 22; [0019]), thereby forming a bipolar electrode (Fig. 1, bipolar electrode 20; [0014]);
and wherein the housing 12 receives (Fig. 1, wherein 12 is configured to receive 32, 30, and 20) the terminal cathode assembly 30, the terminal anode assembly 32 and the at least one bipolar assembly 20 such that a liquid seal ([0036], “sealed…completely fluidly isolated from other cells”) is formed between adjacent electrode assemblies (Fig. 1, adjacent 30, 20, and 32 forming sealed cells 21; see [0036] and 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 2,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a plurality of slots (Fig. 1, portions of 12 penetrated by electrodes), comprising a first terminal slot (Fig. 1, portion of 12 penetrated by 30), a second terminal slot (Fig. 1, portion of 12 penetrated by 32) and at least one intermediate slot (Fig. 1, portion of 12 penetrated by 20), each slot (see above) receiving one of the terminal cathode assembly 30, the terminal anode assembly 32 or one bipolar electrode assembly 20, wherein the terminal cathode assembly 30 is received in the first terminal slot (Fig. 1, portion of 12 penetrated by 30) and the anode (Fig. 1, 32; see 112(b) rejection above) is received in the other (Fig. 1, portion of 12 penetrated by 32, see 112(b) rejection above) of the first terminal slot (Fig. 1, portion of 12 penetrated by 30; see 112(b) rejection above) and the second terminal slot (Fig. 1, portion of 12 penetrated by 32).
Regarding claim 3,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the plurality of slots (see rejection of claim 2 above) are separated (see Fig. 1, portions of 12 penetrated by electrodes are separated) from each other by a divider (Fig. 1, separator 26; [0033]).
Regarding claim 4,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the housing 12 is formed by injection molding [0034].
Regarding claim 24,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the anode assembly 32 is a metal ([0030], “metals”) current collector (see [0030], wherein the anode assembly includes terminal connector 35 and current collector 36).
Regarding claim 25,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 24 (see rejection of claim 24 above), wherein the current collector (see [0029] wherein 32 collects current via 36) is a patterned current collector ([0032]; [0022], “pattern”).
Regarding claim 26,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above), wherein the current collector (see [0029] wherein 32 collects current via 36) is coated with a conductive polymer (Fig 1, 35; [0030], “conductive polymer, metals, and any combination thereof”).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US-20090081541-A1) in view of Kano (US-20200388875-A1).
Regarding claim 5,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4), but fails to teach wherein the conductive plastic resin comprises a polyolefin or a fluoropolymer. Kano teaches wherein the conductive [0035] plastic resin (Fig. 1, 11; [0036], “resin”) comprises a polyolefin (Fig. 1, 11; [0036], “polyolefin”) or a fluoropolymer (Kano, Fig. 1, 11; [0036], “polytetrafluoroethylene”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the conductive plastic resin of Kelly with conductive plastic resin of Kano (see Kano; [0035], polymer matrix + conductive filler) as Kano teaches these materials are stable, lightweight, and contribute to a high output density (Kano; [0036]).
Regarding claim 10,
Kelly in view of Kano teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein conductive (Kano; [0035]) plastic resin (Kano, Fig. 1, 11; [0036], “resin”) is compounded (see [0036]-[0039]) with a carbonaceous [0038]-[0039] conductive (Kano; [0035]) diluent (Kano, [0038], “carbon material, aluminum… or two or more thereof may be combined together”, wherein graphite is both carbonaceous and conductive).
Regarding claim 11,
Kelly in view of Kato teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the carbonaceous conductive diluent [0020] comprises metal (Kato; [0038], “carbon material, aluminum… or two or more thereof may be combined together”; see 112(b) rejection above.)
Regarding claim 12,
Kelly in view of Kato teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the polyolefin (Kano; [0036]) or fluoropolymer (Kano; [0036]) comprises a homopolymer (Kano; [0036]) or co-polymer (Kano; [0036]) of polyethylene (PE) (Kano; [0036]), polypropylene (PP) (Kano; [0036]), or polyvinylidene fluoride (Kano; [0036]).
Claims 6-8, 13, 15, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US-20090081541-A1) in view of Kano (US-20200388875-A1) and Dasgupta (US-6159635-A).
Regarding claim 6,
Kelly in view of Kato teaches static bipolar battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), but fails to teach wherein the non-conductive plastic material comprises a blended composite of one or more non-conductive polymers. Dasgupta teaches a nonconductive plastic (col 5, lines 10-15) comprises a blended composite (col 5, lines 10-14) of one or more non-conductive polymers (col 5, lines 10-20, “polyethylene, polyolefin”). It would be obvious to have wherein the non-conductive plastic material comprises a blended composite of one or more polymers as Dasgupta teaches that a polymer mixture can help tailor the resistivity (col. 3-4, lines 64-1)
Regarding claim 7,
Kelly in view of Kato and Dasgupta teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the non-conductive plastic material (Fig. 1, material of 12; [0013]) is polypropylene ([0013], “polypropylene”).
Regarding claim 8,
Kelly in view of Kato and Dasgupta teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the bipolar battery 10 comprises an electrolyte ([0016], “electrolyte”) in contact [0016] with the at least one bipolar electrode assembly (Fig. 1, assembly of bipolar electrodes 20; [0029]).
Regarding claim 13,
Kelly in view of Kato and Dasgupta teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the polymer (conductive polymer 22 of claim 1; see 112(b) rejection above) is compounded with a conductive carbon, carbon black, graphite, carbon fiber, or a combination thereof. Dasgupta teaches a non-conductive polymer (col. 5, lines 10-20) compounded with carbon black (col 5, lines 10-20). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the conductive polymer compounded with carbon black and binder, as Dasgupta suggests doing so increases the conductivity of the mixture (col 5; lines 45-50), wherein it is well understood binders help composite mixtures form.
Regarding claim 15,
Kelly in view of Kato and Dasgupta teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 1, wherein the carbon material is a carbon black (see rejection of claim 14 above) combined with a binder (Dasgupta, col 5; lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 16,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the carbon material is combined with a binder (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US-20090081541-A1) in view of Kano (US-20200388875-A1), Dasgupta (US-6159635-A), and Adamson (US-20170194666-A1).
Regarding claim 9,
Kelly in view of Kato and Dasgupta teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), but fails to teach wherein the electrolyte is a zinc bromide electrolyte. Adamson teaches a zinc bromide electrolyte [0230]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the electrolyte of Kelly for a zinc bromide electrolyte, as suggested by Adamson [0230], because Adamson teaches that a zinc bromide electrolyte maintains greater charge capacities over a greater number of charge cycles [0418].
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US-20090081541-A1) and Gleb (US-20150349346-A1).
Regarding claim 14,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the polymer (see 112(b) rejection above, nonconductive plastic in 12 [0013]), but fails to teach further comprises a structural filler, glass fiber, glass bead, or silica fume. Gleb teaches nonconductive plastic ([0027], “polymer”) further comprises a structural filler ([0091], “filler”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate a structural filler into the non-conductive plastic as Gleb teaches a filler allows for a thinner composite structure [0091].
Claims 17-21, 23, 27-30, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US-20090081541-A1) in view of Kano (US-20200388875-A1) and Hamaoka (DE-102021101264-A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 17,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the bipolar electrode assembly further comprises a perimeter support. Hamaoka teaches wherein the bipolar electrode assembly further comprises a perimeter support. (Fig. 10, seal body 12; [0037]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to weld [0038] the sealing body of Hamaoka to the conductive resin plate of Kelly, using seal 80a to ensure airtight connection (see [0082]), as Hamaoka teaches sealing body to hold the edges of the electrode assembly [0037], sealing the space between electrodes such that they are airtightly partitioned (see [0052]).
Regarding claim 18,
Kelly teaches the static bipolar batter of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the perimeter support 12 comprises at least one seal (Hamaoka, Fig. 10, 80a; see rejection of claim 17 above).
Regarding claim 19,
Kelly in view of Kano teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the perimeter support 12 further comprises a stiffening assembly (Hamaoka; Fig. 10, 21, wherein a stiffening assembly is interpreted as any member that contributes to the overall structural integrity).
Regarding claim 20,
Kelly in view of Kato and Hamaoka teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above), wherein the stiffening assembly 21 is formed over the at least one seal 81 (Fig. 10, 21 formed over 80a; [0050-0053]).
Regarding claim 21,
Kelly in view of Kato and Hamaoka teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 20, wherein a second seal (Fig. 10, 22; [0037]) is formed over (see Fig. 10, 22 over 21) the stiffening assembly 21.
Regarding claim 23,
Kelly in view of Kato and Hamaoka teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above), wherein the perimeter support 12 cooperates with the housing (Hamaoka, [0051]) to form the liquid seal [0052] is formed between adjacent [0052] electrode assemblies (see [0052], [0075], rejection of claim 19 above, and 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 27,
Kelly in view of Kato and Hamaoka teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the anode assembly and the cathode assembly comprise a conductive plastic resin (see rejection of claim 1 above). 42, wherein 30 and 32 have a substrate 34 akin to substrate 22
Regarding claim 28,
Kelly in view of Kato and Hamaoka teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 27 (see rejection of claim 27 above), wherein the anode assembly 32 and the cathode assembly 30 comprise conductive ([0030], wherein metal is conductive) metal [0030] terminals (Fig. 1, 35; [0030]) embedded in (see Fig. 1) and extending from (see Fig. 1, 35 extending from the conductive plastic resin).
Regarding claim 29,
Kelly in view of Kato and Hamaoka teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), wherein the metal [0030] terminals (Fig. 1, 35; [0030]) are selected from the group consisting of titanium and aluminum [0030].
Regarding claim 30,
Kelly in view of Kato and Hamaoka teaches the static bipolar battery of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), wherein the seal (Hamaoka, Fig. 10, 80a; [0037], see rejection of claim 18 above) material [0073] is a solid type (see [0073], “cured” wherein a cured material is solid).
Regarding claim 38,
Kelly in view of Kato and Hamaoka teaches the static bipolar battery of one of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above), wherein the conductive plastic resin is welded (Hamaoka; [0038]; see rejection of claim 17 above) to the stiffening assembly (Fig. 10, 12, see [0038], wherein Hamaoka teaches welding the stiffening assembly in order to achieve high quality seal, and see combination in claim 17 above wherein 12 is attached by welding).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Li (CN106159353B), who is relevant to another disclosure of a bipolar electrode assembly with electrodes held in slots (see Fig. 1).
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