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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 – 10 in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged. The restriction is hereby made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) by Faust, US20130065105A1.
Regarding claim 1, Faust teaches a connection assembly (substrate assembly)[0008], comprising:
a substrate (12) formed of a non-conductive material (insulative material)[0029], the substrate having a via (perforations (13))[0023] extending through the substrate from a first side of the substrate to a second side of the substrate opposite the first side [fig. 2];
a first current collector disposed on the first side of the substrate; a second current collector disposed on the second side of the substrate (lead foils (14) on both sides of substrate (12))[0024]; and
a connection element disposed in the via between the first current collector and the second current collector, the connection element mechanically and electrically connects the first current collector and the second current collector through the via (lead foils (14) are electrically connected through the perforations (13))[0037].
Regarding claim 2, Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 1, wherein the connection element is formed of a same conductive material as the first current collector and the second current collector (foils (14) extend through the perforations)[0037]
Regarding claim 3, Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 2, wherein the connection element is monolithically formed in a single piece with one of the first current collector and the second current collector (foils (14) extend through the perforations and are welded)[0037].
Regarding claim 5, Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 1, wherein the connection element has a connection element thickness approximately equal to a substrate thickness of the substrate (foils (14) extend through the perforations which is the thickness of the substrate)[0037].
Regarding claim 6, Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first current collector and the second current collector is connected to the connection element by a weld (foils (14) extend through the perforations and are welded)[0037].
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faust, US20130065105A1.
Regarding claim 4, Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 1.
Faust does not teach wherein the connection element is discrete from the first current collector and the second current collector.
However, making a claimed structure separable or integral is considered to be a design change which is considered obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art [MPEP 2144.04 V B – C]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the connection element of Faust as a discrete (non-integral) structure from the current collectors as an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 8, Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 7.
Faust does not teach wherein the connection element is sintered to form the textured surface.
However, the missing limitation is directed at a product by process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. The limitation requiring that the textured surface be formed by sintering does not impact the patentability of the product.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faust, US20130065105A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elhamid, US20100291464A1.
Regarding claim 7, Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 1.
Faust does not teach wherein the connection element has a textured surface and is connected to at least one of the first current collector and the second current collector by engagement of the textured surface with the at least one of the first current collector and the second current collector.
Elhamid teaches a connection assembly (bipolar plate)[0001] wherein the connection element has a textured surface and is connected to at least one of the first current collector and the second current collector by engagement of the textured surface with the at least one of the first current collector and the second current collector (collectors are formed with textured surfaces)[0009][0024]. Further, Elhamid teaches that having a textured surface reduces contact resistance between conductive surfaces [0009]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the textured surfaces of Elhamid into the connection element of combined Faust to reduce contact resistance between the conductive elements.
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faust, US20130065105A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirota, US20230361312A1.
Regarding claim 9, Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 1.
Faust does not tech further comprising a sealant layer disposed between the first current collector and the first side of the substrate.
Hirota teaches a connection assembly (bipolar assembly) comprising a substrate (bipolar plate (12)) and current collector (101) further comprising a sealant layer (adhesive (140)) disposed between the first current collector (101) and the first side of the substrate (12)[fig. 2]. Further, Hirota teaches that the sealant layer prevents electrolyte leakage thereby improving battery performance [0005]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sealant layer of Hirota into the connection assembly of Faust to improve battery performance.
Regarding claim 10, combined Faust teaches the connection assembly of claim 9.
Further, Hirota teaches wherein the sealant layer has an opening extending through the sealant layer and surrounded by a material of the sealant layer, the opening is aligned with the via and the first current collector is electrically and mechanically connected to the connection element through the opening (adhesive layer (140) having an opening which corresponds to conduction hole (12a))[fig. 1].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights