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 .
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20160372727 A1, “Guo”) in view of Deiters et al. (US 20210242449 A1, “Deiters”), Whear et al. (US 20180366710 A1, “Whear”) and Miller et al. (US 20200035974 A1, “Miller”).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a lead-acid battery electrode plate (see title “lead-acid batteries”; see [0053] “an electrode plate”) for preventing lead sulfate dendrite growth (see [0025] “prevent short-circuiting of the cell”) and enhancing battery formation efficiency (see [0011] “can create a more consistent operation and may thereby extend the life of the battery”), comprising: an electricity collector layer provided to be an electricity channel (see [0036] “bi-functional mat used in the cells may be sufficiently electrically insulating to prevent significant electron conductance between the pos. and neg. electrode assemblies 202 and 212” & “while the bi-functional mats 220 are electrically insulating, it should also be conductive to the ions in the electrolyte”); a first air-permeable layer, provided right on one surface of the electricity collector layer, comprising a non-metallic sheet material (see FIG. 2 “bi-functional mat 220A, 220B”; see FIG. 1 “separator 120”); and a second air-permeable layer, corresponding to the firs air-permeable layer, provided right on other surface of the electricity collector layer, comprising a non-metallic sheet material (see FIG. 2 “bi-functional mat 220A, 220B”; see FIG. 1 “separator 120”), wherein the non-metallic sheet material has a porous structure to be air-permeable channels, and the first air-permeable layer is the same to the second air-permeable layer (see [0025] “separator 120” & “porosity” & see FIG. 2 “bi-function mat 220A, 220B”), wherein the porous structure comprising one or more interwoven layers (see [0051] “separators comprising fibrous mats comprising bunches or bundles of fibers”). Guo does not explicitly disclose a fabric braid.
Miller teaches interweaving (twisted) (see FIG. 1F [0051] “where fibers are twisted, such separators comprising such fibrous mats may exhibit even more significant increases in strength compared with separators comprising conventional mats”; see [0064] describes “lead acid batteries”).
Guo and Miller are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lead acid batteries (see Miller [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate interweaving (twisted), as suggested by Miller (see FIG. 1F & [0051]) into the lead-acid battery electrode plate of Guo because doing so provides “significant increase in strength”, as suggested by Miller (see [0051] & FIG. 1F).
Regarding the limitation for preventing lead sulfate dendrite growth, Guo does not explicitly disclose, however, Guo does disclose “prevent short-circuiting of the cell” (see [0025]).
Deiters teaches preventing dendrite growth (see [0231] “mitigating dendrite growth”) & “having reduced electrical resistance” & “enhancing battery life” (see [0231]). A skilled artisan would find it obvious that electrical conductivity is inversely proportional to resistance. The specification of the instant invention in [028] describes “to improve formation efficiency of the lead-acid battery, the non-metallic sheet material is made of electrical conductive materials having high electrical conductivity” which provides evidence that enhanced battery formation efficiency is a property of the lead-acid battery electrode plate material.
Guo and Deiters are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lead-acid batteries (see Deiters abstract “lead acid battery”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a battery with the same material for the electrode plate would exhibit similar properties including enhanced battery formation efficiency and prevent lead sulfate dendrite. Guo discloses a substantially similar material as the present invention would exhibit similar properties as the claimed invention including preventing lead sulfate dendrite growth and enhanced battery formation efficiency.
Regarding the limitation wherein a plurality of pores of various sizes are formed in the interwoven layers without crosslinking agent, Guo does not explicitly disclose.
Miller teaches pores (see [0142] "separator whose pores and/or fibrils" & see FIG. 1H & [0054] “pore size of the fibrous mat” which describes various sizes of the pores & see [0071] describes “separators” & “uncrosslinked” material & “in certain preferred embodiments, the rubber is uncrosslinked rubber”).
Guo and Miller are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lead acid batteries (see [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate uncrosslinked, as suggested by Miller (see [0071]) into the lead acid battery electrode plate of Guo because doing so is preferred, as suggested by Miller (see [0071]).
Regarding the limitation the porous structure comprises 1.00 to 5.50 wt% electrical conductive material, and the electrical conductive material is selected from a group consisting of nanocarbon, graphite and graphene, Guo discloses in [0037] “glass-fiber mats may be blended with non-glass fibers” & “graphite”. Guo does not explicitly disclose a weight percent of the material.
Whear teaches weight percent of the material (see [0188] “a separator may contain a performance-enhancing additive in the form of a nucleation additive and/or coating” & see [0189] “graphite” & “graphene” & “carbon nanotubes” which reads on nanocarbon & [0192] describes 5% to 75% by weight).
Guo and Whear are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lead acid battery (see Whear title).
Whear teaches a range of 5% to 75%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.00 to 5.50 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 5% to 75% by weight as suggested by Whear (see [0192]) into the lead acid battery electrode plate of Guo because doing so incorporates a performance-enhancing additive as suggested by Whear (see [0188]) in the suggested range taught by Whear (see [0192]).
Regarding claim 2, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses “separators comprising fibrous mats comprising bunches or bundles of fibers” (see [0051]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the interwoven layers are made by interweaving a plurality of latitudinal threads and a plurality of longitudinal threads, wherein an intersection angle formed between any one of the latitudinal threads intersecting with any one of the longitudinal threads is an acute angle or an obtuse angle.
Deiters teaches acute angle & obtuse angle (see [0131] “angle from 0° to less than 180°) & see FIG. 10 & [0071] “fibrous mat” & describes the fibers intersect & acute angle or obtuse angle & see [0110] “bundles may be laid in a patterned orientation, randomly deposited, or a combination thereof”.
Deiters teaches a range of 0° to less than 180°, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of an acute angle or an obtuse angle. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 10, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery electrode plate of claim 3, & the lead-acid battery of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric braid comprises a fabric braid woven from long electrical conductive fiber materials.
Miller teaches interweaving (twisted) (see FIG. 1F [0051] “where fibers are twisted, such separators comprising such fibrous mats may exhibit even more significant increases in strength compared with separators comprising conventional mats”; see [0064] describes “lead acid batteries”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate interweaving (twisted), as suggested by Miller (see FIG. 1F & [0051]) into the lead-acid battery electrode plate of Guo because doing so provides “significant increase in strength”, as suggested by Miller (see [0051] & FIG. 1F).
Regarding claim 3, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the porous structure comprises a corrosion-resistant material, wherein the corrosion-resistant material comprises glass fiber (see [0035] “glass fibers” which reads on glass fiber). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to corrosion-resistance is a property of the material.
Regarding claim 5, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery electrode plate of claim 3 and further discloses wherein the corrosion-resistant material comprise glass fiber (see [0035] “glass fibers” which reads on glass fiber).
Regarding claim 6, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a thickness of the first air-permeable layer and a thickness of the second air-permeable layer is 10 mils (see FIG. 2 “bi-functional mat 220A, 220B”; see FIG. 1 “separator 120” & see [0034] “thickness greater than about 10 mils” which is equivalent to 0.254 mm which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm.
Guo discloses a range of greater than about 10 mils (equivalent to 0.254 mm), which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 7, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses a lead-acid battery comprising: a seal case; an electrode plate stack, sealed in the seal case (see title “lead-acid batteries”; see [0038] “reinforcement mat 230” & “fully envelope or surround the electrode”; & see FIG. 2 describes “positive electrode assembly 202” & “negative electrode assembly 212” & see [0039] “battery casing” which reads on electrode plate stack sealed in the seal case), comprising: a separator (see FIG. 2 “220 separator”); a positive electrode plate (see FIG. 2 “positive electrode 202”), provided on one side of the separator (see FIG. 2); and a negative electrode plate, provided on the other side of the separator in a corresponding manner to the positive electrode plate (see FIG. 2 “negative electrode 112”); and an electrolyte solution, sealed in the seal case ad immersing the electrode plate stack, dissolving acidic electrolyte (see [0021] “AGM batteries operate in closed system in which the glass mat in the cell is saturated with electrolyte, e.g. sulfuric acid” which reads on acidic electrolyte).
Regarding claim 8, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the interwoven layers are made by interweaving a plurality of latitudinal threads and a plurality of longitudinal threads nor wherein an intersection angle formed between any one of the latitudinal threads intersecting with any one of the longitudinal threads is an acute angle or an obtuse angle.
Miller teaches interweaving (twisted) (see FIG. 1F [0051] “where fibers are twisted, such separators comprising such fibrous mats may exhibit even more significant increases in strength compared with separators comprising conventional mats”; see [0064] describes “lead acid batteries”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate interweaving (twisted), as suggested by Miller (see FIG. 1F & [0051]) into the lead-acid battery electrode plate of Guo because doing so provides “significant increase in strength”, as suggested by Miller (see [0051] & FIG. 1F).
Deiters teaches acute angle & obtuse angle (see [0131] “angle from 0° to less than 180°) & see FIG. 10 & [0071] “fibrous mat” & describes the fibers intersect & acute angle or obtuse angle & see [0110] “bundles may be laid in a patterned orientation, randomly deposited, or a combination thereof”.
Deiters teaches a range of 0° to less than 180°, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of an acute angle or an obtuse angle. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 9 and claim 11, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the corrosion-resistant material comprises glass fiber (see [0035] “glass fibers” which reads on glass fiber).
Regarding claim 12, Guo discloses the lead-acid battery of claim 7 and further discloses wherein a thickness of the first air-permeable layer and a thickness of the second air-permeable layer is 10 mils (see FIG. 2 “bi-functional mat 220A, 220B”; see FIG. 1 “separator 120” & see [0034] “thickness greater than about 10 mils” which is equivalent to 0.254 mm which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm.
Guo discloses a range of greater than about 10 mils (equivalent to 0.254 mm), which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Claims 13-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20160372727 A1, “Guo”) in view of Whear et al. (US 20180366710 A1, “Whear”) and Miller et al. (US 20200035974 A1, “Miller”).
Regarding claim 13, Guo discloses a method for making a lead-acid battery electrode plate (see abstract “methods of producing a battery” & see title “lead-acid batteries”) comprising: placing one first non-metallic sheet material and one second non-metallic sheet material right on two surfaces of the electricity collector layer in a respective manner so as to obtain the lead-acid battery electrode plate (see FIG. 2 & [0047]-[0048] describes method of producing a lead-acid battery) wherein the first non-metallic sheet material and the second non-metallic sheet material have porous structures to be air-permeable channels of a first air-permeable layer and a second air-permeable layer (see FIG. 2 “bi-functional mat 220A, 220B”; see FIG. 1 “separator 120”), and the first air-permeable layer is the same as the second air-permeable layer (see [0025] “separator 120” & see FIG. 2 describes “bi-functional mat 220A, 220B”) wherein: the porous structure comprising one or more interwoven layers (see [0051] “separators comprising fibrous mats comprising bunches or bundles of fibers”). Guo further discloses in [0037] “glass-fiber mats may be blended with non-glass fibers” & “graphite”. Guo does not explicitly disclose the porous structure is a fabric braid, nor wherein a plurality of pores of various sizes are formed in the interwoven layers without crosslinking agent or binding agent; nor the porous structure comprises 1.00 to 5.50 wt% electrical conductive material.
Miller teaches interweaving (twisted) (see FIG. 1F [0051] “where fibers are twisted, such separators comprising such fibrous mats may exhibit even more significant increases in strength compared with separators comprising conventional mats”; see [0064] describes “lead acid batteries”).
Guo and Miller are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lead acid batteries (see Miller [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate interweaving (twisted), as suggested by Miller (see FIG. 1F & [0051]) into the lead-acid battery electrode plate of Guo because doing so provides “significant increase in strength”, as suggested by Miller (see [0051] & FIG. 1F).
Whear teaches weight percent of the material (see [0188] “a separator may contain a performance-enhancing additive in the form of a nucleation additive and/or coating” & see [0189] “graphite” & “graphene” & “carbon nanotubes” which reads on nanocarbon & [0192] describes 5% to 75% by weight).
Guo and Whear are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lead acid battery (see Whear title).
Whear teaches a range of 5% to 75%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.00 to 5.50 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 5% to 75% by weight as suggested by Whear (see [0192]) into the lead acid battery electrode plate of Guo because doing so incorporates a performance-enhancing additive as suggested by Whear (see [0188]) in the suggested range taught by Whear (see [0192]).
Regarding claim 14, Guo discloses the method of claim 13 and further discloses further comprising exerting a pressure on the lead-acid battery electrode plate so as to laminate the electricity collector layer, the first non-metallic sheet material and the second non-metallic sheet material in a more compact manner, wherein the pressurizing procedure can be rolling, compressing in a compressor (see [0043] “compress the formed composite” & “roller 445 applying bi-function mat material 440”).
Regarding claim 15, Guo discloses the method of claim 14, and further discloses wherein the exerting pressure step is performed with a roller system (see [0043] “roller 445” & see FIG. 4 describes a roller system “manufacturing system 400”).
Regarding claim 16, Guo discloses the method of claim 13 and further discloses after obtaining the lead-acid battery electrode plate, the method further comprises: soaking a sulfuric acid to the first non-metallic sheet material (see [0021] “AGM and drying batteries operate in a closed system in which the glass mat in the cell is saturated with electrolyte, e.g. sulfuric acid, and allows reduction/elimination of evaporation due to a closed system”); and drying the first non-metallic sheet material (see [0046] “drying operation” & see [0054] “drying, curing”). Guo does not explicitly disclose at a drying temperature for a drying time, wherein the drying temperature is higher than room temperature.
Whear teaches drying temperature (see [0137] “Dry the samples for at least 5 minutes in 105° C.-110° C. (220° F.-230° F.) circulating air oven”).
Whear teaches a range of 105 to 110 ° C, which overlaps with the claimed range of higher than room temperature. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 18, and claim 19, Guo discloses the method of claim 13 and further discloses wherein the porous structure comprises, a corrosion-resistant material, wherein the corrosion-resistant material comprises glass fiber (see [0035] “glass fibers” which reads on glass fiber). A skilled artisan would find it obvious to corrosion-resistance is a property of the material.
Regarding claim 20, Guo discloses the method of claim 18 and further discloses after obtaining the lead-acid battery electrode plate, wherein a thickness of the first air-permeable layer and a thickness of the second air-permeable layer is 10 mils (see FIG. 2 “bi-functional mat 220A, 220B”; see FIG. 1 “separator 120” & see [0034] “thickness greater than about 10 mils” which is equivalent to 0.254 mm which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm.
Guo discloses a range of greater than about 10 mils (equivalent to 0.254 mm), which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20160372727 A1, “Guo”) in view of Whear et al. (US 20180366710 A1, “Whear”) and Miller et al. (US 20200035974 A1, “Miller”) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Deiters et al. (US 20210242449 A1, “Deiters”).
Regarding claim 17, Guo discloses the method of claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the interwoven layers are made by interweaving a plurality of latitudinal threads and a plurality of longitudinal threads, nor wherein an intersection angle formed between any one of the latitudinal threads intersecting with any one of the longitudinal threads is an acute angle or an obtuse angle.
Miller teaches interweaving (twisted) (see FIG. 1F [0051] “where fibers are twisted, such separators comprising such fibrous mats may exhibit even more significant increases in strength compared with separators comprising conventional mats”; see [0064] describes “lead acid batteries”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate interweaving (twisted), as suggested by Miller (see FIG. 1F & [0051]) into the lead-acid battery electrode plate of Guo because doing so provides “significant increase in strength”, as suggested by Miller (see [0051] & FIG. 1F).
Deiters teaches acute angle & obtuse angle (see [0131] “angle from 0° to less than 180°) & see FIG. 10 & [0071] “fibrous mat” & describes the fibers intersect & acute angle or obtuse angle & see [0110] “bundles may be laid in a patterned orientation, randomly deposited, or a combination thereof”.
Deiters teaches a range of 0° to less than 180°, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of an acute angle or an obtuse angle. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 08/04/2026
Prosecution Insights