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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/23 and 08/13/24 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/28/23.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to capture the essence of the disclosed/claimed invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. It does not appear to capture the essence of the disclosed/claimed invention.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, the phrase "sheet-like current collector" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "sheet-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication KR-0184760 (herein KR’760).
As to claim 1:
KR’760 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery (Abstract; see pages 8-1/8-2; see Example; see CLAIMS 1-2) comprising a positive electrode containing FeOOH (i.e., iron oxyhydroxide); a negative electrode containing an aluminum-based material; and an electrolyte disposed between respective positive/negative electrodes (Abstract; see pages 8-1/8-2; see Example; see CLAIMS 1-2). In this case, the teachings of KR’760 are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and structurally undefined battery.
As to claim 2:
KR’760 teaches an electrolyte solution containing 3-6 M KOH and 1-3 M LiOH (Abstract; see page 8-3; Example; see CLAIMS 1-2); in particular, a 5 M KOH/2 M LiOH solution (See Example). Thus, in this case, it is noted that the disclosed electrolyte – in the specified molar amount used - is an alkaline electrolyte inherently exhibiting a pH from about 7-8.6.
As to claims 3 and 5:
KR’760 teaches both the positive/negative electrodes includes foil/sheet-like current collectors made of stainless steel (see pages 8-2/8-3: Section 1-Fabrication of Nickel Electrode Material and Nickel Electrode & Section 2-Fabrication of Iron Electrode Materials and Iron Electrode; see Example; see CLAIMS 1-2). Note that stainless steel is an alloy containing, inter alia, iron and chromium, can also be alloyed with carbon.
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
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) 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication KR-0184760 (herein KR’760) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of the publication EP-2731163 (herein EP’163).
KR’760 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the bipolar stack structure.
As to claims 4, 6-7:
In this respect, in the same field of endeavor, EP’163 discloses that it is known in the art to make battery cells having bipolar stack configuration/structures (0001; 0018; 0023; 0025-0026; 0028; 0032; 0034). EP’163 discloses primary battery chemistries (i.e., primary battery cells) (0028; 0038). EP’163 discloses anodes containing magnesium (0039); and aqueous alkaline solutions such as KOH (0036).
By compounding the above teachings, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the battery of KR’760 by having the bipolar stack configuration/structure as taught by EP’163 as EP’163 teaches that battery cells with bipolar stack arrangements provide improved battery assemblies for consumer use and improved cycle life, current distribution, reduced ohmic losses and superior cooling means. 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.
Conclusion
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 1727
Prosecution Insights