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.
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) 1-4 and 11, 13-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al (High Energy Density, Tubular Plate, Motive Power Batteries for Advanced Electric Road Vehicles. Move Electric 91. April 1991) and further in view of Shibahara et al (PGPUB 2013/80099749).
Claim 1: Stevenson teaches a high energy density tubular battery for vehicles [Introduction]. The cells are lead-acid batteries [Cell Construction pg 12]. The positive plate is made of tubes that have electric conducting spines and active material thereon, whereby the Classic 25 (DIN) is exemplified to have a spine diameter of 2.3mm and a tube diameter of 6.1mm [Table 1 pg 15]. The positive electrode comprises a positive active material [Pg 12].
Stevenson teaches the negative electrode to be a flat plate type but is silent to teach the construction to be a grid comprising carbon nanomaterial.
Shibahara teaches a lead acid battery with negative plate having improved charge acceptance and service life performance obtained by adding a carbonaceous electrically conductive material [Abstract]. The negative plate is taught to comprise a negative active material paste packed into a current collector composed of an alloy grid [0089]. Carbonaceous electrically conductive material is added to the negative electrode [0073] and exemplified to be carbon nanotubes [0074]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the negative electrode of Stevenson with the negative electrode of Shibahara in order to suppress the coarsening of negative active material due to charging and discharging [0073].
Claim 2: Stevenson teaches the positive plate is made of tubes that have electric conducting spines and active material thereon, whereby the Classic 25 (DIN) is exemplified to have a spine diameter of 2.3mm and a tube diameter of 6.1mm [Table 1 pg 15]. The cross section of the spine is less than 3.0mm.
Claim 3: Stevenson teaches the positive plate is made of tubes that have electric conducting spines and active material thereon, whereby the Classic 25 (DIN) is exemplified to have a spine diameter of 2.3mm and a tube diameter of 6.1mm [Table 1 pg 15]. The cross section of the spines is more than 2.0mm.
Claim 4: Stevenson teaches the positive plate is made of tubes that have electric conducting spines and active material thereon, whereby the Classic 25 (DIN) is exemplified to have a spine diameter of 2.3mm and a tube diameter of 6.1mm and the Classic (DIN) exemplified to have a spine diameter of 3.2mm and a tube diameter of 8.0mm [Table 1 pg 15]. The claimed invention comprises a range found between the exemplified dimensions. Stevenson – Table 1 – shows a relationship and correlation between tube diameter and spine diameter effecting energy density and cycles whereby one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to create a spine in the claimed range in order to produce a desired energy density battery with cycles between 1500 and 1200 cycles – approximately a 45 mile range.
Claim 11: Stevenson teaches the positive plate is made of tubes that have electric conducting spines and active material thereon, whereby the Classic 25 (DIN) is exemplified to have a spine diameter of 2.3mm and a tube diameter of 6.1mm [Table 1 pg 15]. The tube diameter of 6.1mm is less than the claimed 8.5mm.
Claim 13: Stevenson teaches the negative electrode to be a flat plate type but is silent to teach the construction to be a grid comprising carbon nanomaterial.
Shibahara teaches a lead acid battery with negative plate having improved charge acceptance and service life performance obtained by adding a carbonaceous electrically conductive material [Abstract]. The negative plate is taught to comprise a negative active material paste packed into a current collector composed of an alloy grid [0089]. Carbonaceous electrically conductive material is added to the negative electrode [0073] and exemplified to be carbon nanotubes [0074]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the negative electrode of Stevenson with the negative electrode of Shibahara in order to suppress the coarsening of negative active material due to charging and discharging [0073].
Claim 14: Stevenson is silent to teach carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode.
Shibahara teaches a lead acid battery with negative plate having improved charge acceptance and service life performance obtained by adding a carbonaceous electrically conductive material [Abstract]. The negative plate is taught to comprise a negative active material paste packed into a current collector composed of an alloy grid [0089]. Carbonaceous electrically conductive material is added to the negative electrode [0073] and exemplified to be carbon nanotubes [0074] in a range of 0.1 to 3 parts by mass compared to 100 parts by mass of the negative active material [0074] which obviates the claimed range of 0.1wt% to 10wt%. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the negative electrode of Stevenson with the negative electrode of Shibahara in order to suppress the coarsening of negative active material due to charging and discharging [0073].
Claim 15: Stevenson is silent to teach the thickness of the negative electrode to be 4.5mm or less.
Shibahara teaches the thickness of the negative electrode to be obvious to optimize. The thickness of the electrode plates is an adjustable parameter in order to change the number of plates and change the total surface area of the positive active material per unit pack volume and the total area of the negative electrode material [0119]. The pack volume of the cell is adjustable by the thickness dimension of the electrodes [0093]. The pack volume is taught to impact the charging current [Table 4, Table 5]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to adjust the thickness of the negative electrode in order to improve the charging current at the start and after 5000 cycles in order to improve the stability of the battery.
Claim 16: Stevenson is silent to teach a phenolic resin separator.
Shibahara teaches the separator to be made of a nonwoven fabric including a fiber of at least glass, pulp, and polyolefin with organic compounds to reduce the coarsening of negative active material du toe charging and discharging including formaldehyde condensate of bisphenol and aminobenzenesulfonic acid [0040], applicant’s phenolic resin. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify the separator of Stevenson to include the separator of Shibahara in order to improve the battery performance through reduction of the coarsening of the negative electrode [0040-0041].
Claim 18: Instant claim recites a limitation to resistance dependent on a specific method of testing. This fails to positively recite the structure of the instant invention over the prior art. The prior art of Stevenson modified by Shibahara teaches all positively recited structural features. Additionally, Shibahara teaches modifications to the separator and negative electrode in order to improve battery cycle health, pack volume, and other such characteristics that one having ordinary skill in the art would utilize to improve the resistance of the battery in an effort to optimize the battery.
Claim 19: Stevenson teaches the purpose of the battery for a vehicle [Introduction, Background].
Claim 20: Stevenson is silent to teach the batteries connected in series.
Shibahara teaches the batteries connected in series [Fig 3]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to create a stack battery configuration as shown by Shibahara in order to improve battery cycle health, pack volume, and other such characteristics [0015-0022].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al (High Energy Density, Tubular Plate, Motive Power Batteries for Advanced Electric Road Vehicles. Move Electric 91. April 1991) and Shibahara et al (PGPUB 2013/80099749) as applies to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Bohnstedt et al (USPAT 5221587).
Claim 17: Stevenson is silent to teach the porosity of the separator.
Shibahara teaches the separator to be made of a porous material [0085] whereby the highly porous separator is utilized [0087, 0116]. The amount of porosity is high and used to suppress the descent of sulfuric acid ions and occurrence of stratification when high-porosity separators are used to face the negative plate [0116]. Although Shibahara does not specifically recite 60% porosity or greater, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to discover workable ranges within the ‘high-porosity’ description of Shibahara in order to improve the cycle characteristics of the resulting battery [0116].
Further, Bohnstedt lead acid batteries [abstract] and provides evidence that it is well known in manufacturing separators to conventionally have microporous separators with porosity between 40-90% [Col 4 Ln 18-32]. The claimed porosity would have been well known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al (High Energy Density, Tubular Plate, Motive Power Batteries for Advanced Electric Road Vehicles. Move Electric 91. April 1991) and further in view of Shibahara et al (PGPUB 2013/0099749) as evidenced by Bohnstedt et al (USPAT 5221587).
Claim 23: Stevenson teaches a high energy density tubular battery for vehicles [Introduction]. The cells are lead-acid batteries [Cell Construction pg 12]. The positive plate is made of tubes that have electric conducting spines and active material thereon, whereby the Classic 25 (DIN) is exemplified to have a spine diameter of 2.3mm and a tube diameter of 6.1mm [Table 1 pg 15]. The positive electrode comprises a positive active material [Pg 12].
Stevenson teaches the negative electrode to be a flat plate type but is silent to teach the construction to be a grid comprising carbon nanomaterial.
Shibahara teaches a lead acid battery with negative plate having improved charge acceptance and service life performance obtained by adding a carbonaceous electrically conductive material [Abstract]. The negative plate is taught to comprise a negative active material paste packed into a current collector composed of an alloy grid [0089]. Carbonaceous electrically conductive material is added to the negative electrode [0073] and exemplified to be carbon nanotubes [0074]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the negative electrode of Stevenson with the negative electrode of Shibahara in order to suppress the coarsening of negative active material due to charging and discharging [0073].
Stevenson is silent to teach carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode.
Shibahara teaches a lead acid battery with negative plate having improved charge acceptance and service life performance obtained by adding a carbonaceous electrically conductive material [Abstract]. The negative plate is taught to comprise a negative active material paste packed into a current collector composed of an alloy grid [0089]. Carbonaceous electrically conductive material is added to the negative electrode [0073] and exemplified to be carbon nanotubes [0074] in a range of 0.1 to 3 parts by mass compared to 100 parts by mass of the negative active material [0074] which obviates the claimed range of 0.1wt% to 10wt%. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the negative electrode of Stevenson with the negative electrode of Shibahara in order to suppress the coarsening of negative active material due to charging and discharging [0073].
Stevenson is silent to teach the separator of the acid cell to have a porosity.
Shibahara teaches the separator to be made of a porous material [0085] whereby the highly porous separator is utilized [0087, 0116]. The amount of porosity is high and used to suppress the descent of sulfuric acid ions and occurrence of stratification when high-porosity separators are used to face the negative plate [0116]. Although Shibahara does not specifically recite 60% porosity or greater, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to discover workable ranges within the ‘high-porosity’ description of Shibahara in order to improve the cycle characteristics of the resulting battery [0116].
Further, Bohnstedt lead acid batteries [abstract] and provides evidence that it is well known in manufacturing separators to conventionally have microporous separators with porosity between 40-90% [Col 4 Ln 18-32]. The claimed porosity would have been well known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Claim 24: Stevenson is silent to teach the batteries connected in series.
Shibahara teaches the batteries connected in series [Fig 3]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to create a stack battery configuration as shown by Shibahara in order to improve battery cycle health, pack volume, and other such characteristics [0015-0022].
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al (High Energy Density, Tubular Plate, Motive Power Batteries for Advanced Electric Road Vehicles. Move Electric 91. April 1991) and Shibahara et al (PGPUB 2013/0099749) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sundberg (USPAT 4276359).
Claim 5: Stevenson teaches a positive electrode for lead acid battery having a tube with a spine but is silent to teach the spine to have an elliptical shape.
Sundberg teaches a tubular plate for a lead acid battery wherein the tubular electrode plate contains positive electrode material (13) [Fig 2; Col 5 Ln 1-13]. The spines are made of an elliptical shape [Col 6 Ln 13-18]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the spine of Stevenson to be an elliptical shape as taught by Sundberg in order to improve the battery characteristics by improving “tip effects” of the positive active material having a thicker region based on an elliptical shape of the spine [Col 6 Ln 13-18].
Claim 6-8: Stevenson teaches the positive plate is made of tubes that have electric conducting spines and active material thereon, whereby the Classic 25 (DIN) is exemplified to have a spine diameter of 2.3mm and a tube diameter of 6.1mm and the Classic (DIN) exemplified to have a spine diameter of 3.2mm and a tube diameter of 8.0mm [Table 1 pg 15]. Stevenson is silent to teach an elliptical shape and therefore does not teach the smallest diameter of the elliptical cross section.
Sundberg teaches tubes that minimize the ratio of volume to surface area based on shapes [Col 5 Ln 14-26]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to discover workable ranges for the elliptical configuration as taught by Sundberg in the invention of Stevenson whereby the claimed range is found to be obvious.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al (High Energy Density, Tubular Plate, Motive Power Batteries for Advanced Electric Road Vehicles. Move Electric 91. April 1991) and Shibahara et al (PGPUB 2013/0099749) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christie et al (PGPUB 2015/0017545).
Claim 9: Stevenson is silent to teach the positive active material to be a fibrous non-woven material with fabric weight.
Christie teaches a battery having a carbon fiber construction [Abstract]. The battery construction is a lead-acid battery [0055, 0100]. Conductive fibers may be non-woven [0030]. The electrode is constructed with a carbon fibrous paper mat (Z-mat produced by Zoltek) having a specific weight of 312g/m2 [0112] or a carbon fiber fabric PAN tap with 136g/m2 [0118] as well as other examples [0124, 01320141, 0149, 0159, 0166, 0173, 0180, 0185, 0191]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the carbon fiber material of Christie for positive active material of Stevenson in order to improve the electrodes, especially in variable loaded states [0014-0030].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights