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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2023, 09/10/2024, 12/02/2024, and 01/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 2018/0006334 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Murata discloses a lead alloy comprising:
0.4% by mass or more and 2% by mass or less of tin, and 0.004% by mass or less of bismuth, and further at least one of 0.1% by mass or less of calcium and/or silver with a balance being lead and inevitable impurities ([0022] a Pb-Ca- Sn alloy having a tin content of 1.6 mass % or more and less than 2.3 mass% or less; [0024] Pb-Ca-Sn alloy can contain a third element such as bismuth at a content that is 0.01 mass % or less and more desirably 0.005 mass% or less; [0023] the calcium is added in an amount of 0.01 mass% or more and less than 0.1 mass %, the calcium is read for claim 1 as being an impurity; additionally silver is listed as an element that can also be added in an amount of 0.01 mass% or less, [0024]). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Murata discloses the lead alloy according to claims 1 and 9. Murata is silent with respect to the diffraction intensity of a cube orientation {001} <100> in a pole figure created by analyzing a surface by an X-ray diffraction method is 4 times or less a diffraction intensity of a random orientation in a pole figure created by analyzing a pure lead powder by the X-ray diffraction method, however, this appears to be an inherent characteristics of the lead alloy containing the materials within the ranges as claimed. Examiner notes the slight differences between the claimed composition of claim 1 and 9 wherein claim 9 can contain calcium in the lead alloy, however, the diffraction intensity of claims 1 and 9 contain the same limitation of the diffraction intensity being 4 times of less than a pure lead powder.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach a diffraction intensity, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the lead alloy disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the lead alloy taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claims 1 and 9, the lead alloy of Murata inherently teaches that diffraction intensity being 4 times that of the diffraction intensity of a pure lead powder. 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) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Murata discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 9. Murata further discloses wherein a content of the bismuth is 0.0004% by mass or more and 0.004% by mass of less ([0024] bismuth can be provided at a mass % or 0.005 mass % or less and thus would overlap the claimed range as bismuth can be added at a mass of greater than 0 and less than 0.005 mass %). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 11, Murata discloses a positive electrode for a lead storage battery comprising a lead layer for the positive electrode formed of the lead alloy according to claims 1, 2 and 10 (see rejections of claims 1, 2 and 10; [0016,0024] positive electrode grid for lead acid batteries having the lead alloy comprising Pb-Ca-Sn and Bi alloy); and
An active material arranged on a surface of the lead layer for the positive electrode ([0028] positive electrode active material layer 24 as seen in Figure 2 applied on the positive electrode grid that is made of the lead alloy material) wherein
A thickness of the lead layer for the positive electrode is 0.5 mm or less ([0045] the method for forming the lead alloy sheet involves a multistage rolling machine that can press lead-alloy slab to have a predetermined thickness and discloses a thickness that can be 0.5-1.5 mm, however, the addition of additional rollers would make the thickness thinner and thus can be used to make the thickness less than 0.5 mm, nevertheless Murata discloses the thickness can be the endpoint of 0.5 mm as claimed). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 7-8, Murata discloses power storage system comprising ([0089] used as a vehicle power supply), a lead storage battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 3 ([0001] lead acid battery having a positive electrode having a lead alloy, see rejection of claim 3), and wherein the power storage system is configured to store power in the lead storage battery ([0089] electrode grid is used in lead acid batteries and can then be used as a vehicle power supply).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 2018/0006334 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lev (US 2016/0028071 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Murata discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Murata discloses a lead acid battery, however, is silent with respect to wherein the positive electrode is for a bipolar lead storage battery.
Lev discloses a bipolar lead acid battery that contains a lead alloy for the current collector of the battery. Lev discloses a bipolar battery assembly can be used having a bipolar positive electrode ([0011-0013] and claims 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the positive electrode of Murata to be a bipolar electrode as taught by Lev. Bipolar batteries are common and known in the art and contain the benefits of a higher energy density and improved power output, thus a skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the electrodes of Murata into bipolar electrodes for an increase in energy density and power output as is known in the art. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 5 are rendered obvious through the combination as bipolar electrodes are common and known in the art.
Regarding claim 6, modified Murata discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5. Murata further discloses a lead storage battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 5 ([0001] lead acid battery having a positive electrode having a lead alloy, see rejection of claim 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukaitani (EP3125341 A1)- discloses a lead storage cell comprising a lead alloy that contains Ca, Sn, In, Bi Pb, and impurities.
Jinbo (JPS63152871A-as cited in the IDS)- discloses a cathode plate made of a lead-tin-calcium-bismuth alloy for lead acid batteries.
Prengaman (US 2008/0233482 A1)- discloses a lead acid battery made of a lead based alloy containing lead, tin, silver, bismuth, and can contain calcium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728