DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/15/26. The applicant has overcome the 102 rejection as set forth in the previous office action. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. However, the present claims are now finally rejected over new grounds of rejections as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4 and 7-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/25 and 01/13/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/26 was considered by the examiner.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall 5389459 in view of either: (a) Sakashita et al’917, and/or (b) Goto et al’890 and/or (c) Kogure et al’987.
As to claims 1, 5-6:
Hall discloses that it is known in the art to make a metal oxide-hydrogen battery system 20 comprising a first enclosed vessel 26 containing battery units/cells 22; a second enclosed vessel 48 being remote from the first vessel and containing a solid state metal hydride producing hydrogen gas to thereby develop a pressure within the second vessel; and a conduit 54 (i.e., applicant’s fill tube) providing mass communication between the first compartment and the second compartment and a control valve 56 (i.e., taken to represent applicant’s undefined control device) for controlling the flow of hydrogen gas to the first vessel from the second vessel (Abstract; Col 1, lines 5-10; see CLAIMS 1-5; see Figures 1-2). Hall discloses that the unit cell 22 may be one of an array of cells (Col 4, lines 18-23), thereby envisioning more than one array of battery cells/vessels.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
556
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hall discloses a metal hydrogen battery according to the foregoing aspects. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific plurality of electrode stacks.
As to claim 1:
In this respect,
(a) Sakashita et al’917 disclose that it is known in the art to make a battery cell comprising a plurality of electrode stacks (i.e., electrode plates stacked) subject pressure to increase the power out thereof (0019), and/or
(b) Goto et al’890 disclose that it is known in the art to make a battery cell comprising a plurality of electrode stacks (i.e., electrode plates stacked) subject pressure to increase the power out thereof (0009) and/or
(c) Kogure et al’987 disclose that it is known in the art to make a battery cell comprising a plurality of electrode stacks (i.e., electrode plates stacked) subject pressure to increase the power out thereof (see CLAIM 6).
In light of the above, it would be within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of electrode stacks of either Sakashita et al’917, and/or Goto et al’890, and/or Kogure et al’987 in the metal hydrogen battery of Hall as the prior art teaches that the specifically disclosed plurality of stacked electrode plates assist in increasing the power out of the battery cell regardless of the chemical or electrochemical system thereof. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall 5389459 in view of either: (a) Sakashita et al’917, and/or (b) Goto et al’890 and/or (c) Kogure et al’987 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fritts 4395469.
Hall, Sakashita et al, Goto et al and Kogure et al are all applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the control device including a compressor.
As to claim 2:
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Fritts discloses that it is known in the art to make a nickel-hydrogen battery system including a pumping/compressing device 38 as part of the hydrogen charging path to efficiently deliver hydrogen gas to the nickel-hydrogen battery (COL 2, lines 45-46 & 62-65; see COL 2, line 26-65; see Figure 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
244
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
By compounding the above teachings, it would be within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pumping/compressing device of Fritts in the metal hydrogen battery of Hall, Sakashita et al, Goto et al and Kogure et al, as instantly combined, because Fritts teaches that the specifically disclosed pumping/compressing device is part of the hydrogen charging path to efficiently deliver hydrogen gas to the nickel-hydrogen battery, thereby assist in moving/transporting hydrogen reactant gas within the metal hydrogen battery, thereby effectively improving the flow of reactant gas for generation of electrochemical energy. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/15/26, with respect to the foregoing claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights