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
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al (US 20180006334 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Murata discloses a lead alloy comprising: tin of 0.4% by mass or more and 2% by mass or less; bismuth of 0.004% by mass or less; and at least one of calcium of 0.1% by mass or less, silver of 0.05% by mass or less, or copper of 0.05% by mass or less; lead; and unavoidable impurities (Pb-Ca-Sn alloy; the alloy has a tin content in a range of 1.6 to 2.1 mass %; the alloy has a third element which can be bismuth; the alloy has a content of the third element (bismuth) in a range of 0.005 mass % or less; the alloy has a calcium content in a range of 0.01 to 0.1 mass %; in regards to claim 2, the calcium can be read as an impurity, however, the claim states the lead alloy “comprises” what is written, therefore, does not exclude the presence of calcium if it is not seen as an impurity; see entire disclosure and especially P22-24; The Examiner notes some of the ranges provided by Murata overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges, and 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) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Murata is silent with respect to the diffraction intensity of the lead alloy. Murata does not in which a diffraction intensity in a crystal orientation {211} <111> in a pole figure created by analyzing a surface of the lead alloy by an X-ray diffraction method is five or less times of a diffraction intensity in a random orientation in a pole figure created by analyzing powder of pure lead by the X-ray diffraction method.
Murata discloses the lead alloy according to claims 1-2 and 4. Murata is silent with respect to “a diffraction intensity in a crystal orientation {211} <111> in a pole figure created by analyzing a surface of the lead alloy by an X-ray diffraction method is five or less times of a diffraction intensity in a random orientation in a pole figure created by analyzing powder of pure lead by the X-ray diffraction method”, however, this appears to be an inherent characteristics of the lead alloy containing the materials within the ranges as claimed. The Examiner notes the slight differences between the claimed alloy composition of claims 2 and 4 wherein claim 4 can contain calcium in the lead alloy, however, the diffraction intensity of both 2 and 4 contain the same limitation of the diffraction intensity being five times of less than a pure lead powder as set forth in claim 1.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach a diffraction intensity, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the lead alloy disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the lead alloy taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claims 1-2 and 4, the lead alloy of Murata inherently teaches the diffraction intensity in a crystal orientation {211} <111> in a pole figure created by analyzing a surface of the lead alloy by an X-ray diffraction method is five or less times of a diffraction intensity in a random orientation in a pole figure created by analyzing powder of pure lead by the X-ray diffraction method. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, Murata discloses a lead storage battery electrode, comprising an electrode lead layer made of the lead alloy according to claims 2, 4, and 1 respectively, and an active material disposed on a surface of the electrode lead layer (lead acid battery 1 in Fig. 1 includes a plurality of positive electrode plates 2 in Figs. 1-2; positive electrode plates 2 include a positive electrode active material layer 24 retained by a positive electrode grid 21 in Fig. 2; the grid is made of the lead alloy comprising Pb-Ca-Sn and bismuth; see entire disclosure and especially P16, 24, 27-28).
Regarding claim 9, Murata discloses a lead storage battery comprising the lead storage battery electrode of claims 7 and 6 respectively (lead acid battery 1 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P1, 16, 24, 27-28).
Regarding claim 10, Murata discloses a power storage system, comprising the lead storage battery according to claim 9, wherein the power storage system is configured to store electricity in the lead storage battery (the battery can be used as a vehicle power supply; see entire disclosure and especially P89).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al (US 20180006334 A1) as applied to claim 6, further in view of Rao (US 5348817 A).
Regarding claim 7, while Murata teaches the lead storage battery electrode can be used within a lead storage battery (lead acid battery; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P1, 16, 24, 27-28), Murata does not disclose the lead storage battery electrode is used for a bipolar lead storage battery.
In a similar field of endeavor, Rao teaches lead-acid batteries and cells have been known for a substantially long period of time and have been employed commercially in a relatively wide variety of applications (C1 / L20-23). Rao teaches one serious drawback of lead-acid batteries is their relatively low energy and power density (C1 / 32-34).
Rao teaches “a true bipolar battery (i.e., the positive and negative plates in some fashion share the same conductive grid or substrate) is capable of providing energy performances at 20 hour rates of about 35-65 watt-hours/kg. and 90-160 watt-hours/liter in comparison to 35-47 watt-hours/kg. and about 50-66 watt-hours/liter for what has been termed a quasi-bipolar battery (i.e., while not sharing the same grid or substrate, the positive and negative plates are connected by multiple connections such as shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,209,575 to McDowall et al.). As regards the power density capability, a true bipolar battery should be capable providing about 1.3 to 6.0 kilowatts/kg. and 3.2 to 14 kilowatts/liter in comparison to about 0.9 kilowatts/kg. and 1.2 kilowatts/liter for a quasi-bipolar battery” (C1 / L39-54).
Rao teaches “The comparative difference in the power and energy density capabilities between a true bipolar and a conventional lead-acid battery design will be even more dramatic. In addition, the inherent uniform current distribution characteristic of a bipolar lead-acid battery in comparison to that exhibited by a conventional lead-acid battery should result in an overall increase in the active material utilization and battery cycle life” (C1 / L54-61).
Rao teaches the conductive metal substrate used for their bipolar plate can comprise a lead alloy comparable in lead-acid batteries (C5 / L55-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Rao and modified the positive electrode of Murata to be a bipolar electrode, given lead-based bipolar batteries are commonly known in the art and Rao teaches a bipolar lead acid battery would have improved active material utilization and battery cycle life over a conventional lead-acid battery. Further, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 8, modified Murata meets the limitation a lead storage battery comprising the lead storage battery electrode of claims 7 (Murata discloses lead acid battery 1 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P1, 16, 24, 27-28).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukaitani et al (EP3125341A1)
Mukaitani discloses a lead storage cell comprising a lead alloy that contains Ca, Sn, In, Bi Pb, and impurities (Abstract).
Jinbo et al (JPS63152871A, as cited in the 12/06/2024 IDS)
Jinbo discloses a cathode plate made of a lead-tin-calcium-bismuth alloy for lead acid batteries (see Page 2 of the document given in the 12/06/2024 IDS).
Prengaman et al (US 20080233482 A1)
Prengaman discloses a lead acid battery made of a lead based alloy containing lead, tin, silver, bismuth, and can contain calcium (Abstract).
Matter (US 4228580 A)
Matter discloses a process for making wrought, recrystallized, lead-calcium, battery grid alloy having high temperature tensile strength stability and excellent corrosion resistance (Abstract). Matter discloses the alloy is casted, and before any significant age hardening occurs, the strip is rolled in one direction through several successive stages to a significantly lesser thickness (C1 / L66 – C2 / L7). Matter discloses, following rolling, the rolled strip can undergo recrystallization in about 30 days after rolling (Abstract). Matter discloses the strip in one example recrystallized to approximately 75 % of complete recrystallization at 2 weeks (C7 / L27-29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 1729