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 .
Claims 1-10 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on May 30, 2023.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukaitani et al. (EP 3 125 341).
Regarding claims 1-6, Mukaitani et al. teach a lead acid battery (“lead storage battery”) comprising a positive electrode including a positive current collector on which a positive active material is held (“lead storage battery electrode”; “active material”), and a negative electrode including a negative current collector on which a negative active material is held. The positive current collector is made of a lead alloy containing, inter alia, 0.05 to 0.1 % by mass Ca, 1.2 to 2.2% by mass of Sn, and at least 0.001 to 0.04% by mass Bi, with the remainder being Pb (“electrode lead layer made of the lead alloy”). See the Abstract and paragraph [0008] of Mukaitani et al.
Mukaitani et al. further teach the feasibility in the aforementioned lead alloy containing from 0.003 to 2% by mass Ag; see paragraph [0010].
It is noted that the lead alloy disclosed in Mukaitani et al. comprises components recited in Applicants’ claims, each in amounts that encompass or overlap Applicants’ respectively recited mass percentage ranges, recited in claims 2 and 4.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549. See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, it is considered that because Mukaitani et al. teach the employment of the aforementioned positive electrode in a lead acid battery (“lead storage battery”) structurally reading upon Applicants’ claimed “lead storage battery electrode”, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the positive electrode disclosed in Mukaitani et al. to successfully and effectively be employed in a bipolar lead storage battery, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 8-10, paragraphs [0021]-[0032] and Tables 2 and 3 of Mukaitani et al. depict an embodiment in which a lead acid battery (“lead storage battery”; “power storage system”) comprising electrodes formed from the aforementioned lead alloy is assembled and tested for cycle life characteristics.
While Mukaitani et al. teach a lead alloy reading upon Applicants’ claimed lead alloy, wherein the lead alloy disclosed in this reference comprises, inter alia, 0.05 to 0.1 % by mass Ca, 1.2 to 2.2% by mass of Sn, and at least 0.001 to 0.04% by mass Bi, with the remainder being Pb, and wherein the lead alloy may further contain from 0.003 to 2% by mass Ag, this reference does not teach or suggest that the lead alloy exhibits a half width of a (311) diffraction peak in a diffraction chart obtained by analyzing said lead alloy by an X-ray diffraction method that is 1.4 or more times of a half width of a (311) diffraction peak in a diffraction chart obtained by analyzing powder of pure lead by the X-ray diffraction method, as recited in Applicants’ claim 1.
However, it considered that because Mukaitani et al. teach a lead alloy structurally reading upon that instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the lead alloy disclosed in Mukaitani et al. to exhibit a half width of a (311) diffraction peak in a diffraction chart obtained by analyzing said lead alloy by an X-ray diffraction method that is 1.4 or more times of a half width of a (311) diffraction peak in a diffraction chart obtained by analyzing powder of pure lead by the X-ray diffraction method, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 2112.01, part II.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0006334).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4, Murata et al. teach a lead alloy containing calcium and tin (defined as a Pb-Ca-Sn alloy), wherein the alloy has a calcium content of 0.10 mass % or less, and a tin content of 2.3 mass % or less. Murata et al. further teach embodiments in which the calcium content is 0.01 mass % or more, and wherein the tin content is more than 1.6 mass %, and further teach the feasibility in the alloy containing a third element other than lead, calcium, and tin. Exemplary third elements, which may be contained singly or in combination of two or more, include bismuth and silver; the third element content is desirably 0.01 mass % or less or 0.005 mass % or less. See paragraphs [0016], [0017], and [0022]-[0024] of Murata et al.
It is noted that the mass percentage ranges for tin, calcium, bismuth, and silver disclosed in Murata et al. overlap or encompass Applicants’ respectively claimed mass percentage ranges, as recited in Applicants’ claims 2 and 4.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549. See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-7, Murata et al. teach a positive electrode plate (“lead storage battery electrode”) including a positive electrode grid (“electrode lead layer…”) comprising the aforementioned lead alloy, and further teaches having a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode grid (“active material disposed on a surface of the electrode lead layer”); see paragraph [0028] and Figure 2 of Murata et al. Although Murata et al. do not explicitly teach that the positive electrode plate (“lead storage battery electrode”) is “used for a bipolar lead storage battery”, as recited in claim 7, it is considered that because the positive electrode plate disclosed in Murata et al. structurally reads upon Applicants’ claimed “lead storage battery electrode”, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the positive electrode plate of Murata et al. to effectively and successfully function as a bipolar lead storage battery, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Murata et al. teach a lead acid battery (“lead storage battery”) including an electrode plate group, wherein the electrode plate group comprises the aforementioned positive electrode plate. See Figure 1 and paragraph [0027] of Murata et al.
Regarding claim 10, Murata et al. teach the feasibility in the aforementioned positive electrode grid, said positive electrode grid comprising the aforementioned lead alloy, used as a vehicle power supply (“power storage system”). See paragraph [0089] of Murata et al.
While Murata et al. teach a lead alloy reading upon Applicants’ claimed lead alloy, wherein the lead alloy disclosed in this reference comprises a calcium content of 0.10 mass % or less, and a tin content of 2.3 mass % or less, and further comprises, as third elements, bismuth and silver, in contents of desirably 0.01 mass % or less or 0.005 mass %, this reference does not teach or suggest that the lead alloy exhibits a half width of a (311) diffraction peak in a diffraction chart obtained by analyzing said lead alloy by an X-ray diffraction method that is 1.4 or more times of a half width of a (311) diffraction peak in a diffraction chart obtained by analyzing powder of pure lead by the X-ray diffraction method, as recited in Applicants’ claim 1.
However, it considered that because Murata et al. teach a lead alloy structurally reading upon that instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the lead alloy disclosed in Murata et al. to exhibit a half width of a (311) diffraction peak in a diffraction chart obtained by analyzing said lead alloy by an X-ray diffraction method that is 1.4 or more times of a half width of a (311) diffraction peak in a diffraction chart obtained by analyzing powder of pure lead by the X-ray diffraction method, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 2112.01, part II.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Palumbo (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0050311).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 December 10, 2025