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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 5,035,045).
Regarding claim 1, Bowen discloses a bipolar storage battery, comprising:
a plurality of internal frame units (3), each including a bipolar plate (7), wherein a positive pole (lead oxide positive electrode 9) is provided on one surface of the bipolar plate and a negative pole (lead negative electrode 8) is provided on an other surface of the bipolar plate (as depicted in Fig. 1), and an internal rim is provided in an outer edge of the bipolar plate (as depicted in annotated Fig. 1 below); and
a plurality of end frame units (end frames 2), each including an end plate constituting a cell in conjunction with the bipolar plate facing the end plate and an end rim provided in an outer edge of the end plate (see Fig. 1 where end plate 2 is integrated with the adjacent cell frame 3 and the end rim is the portion that is in contact with the internal rim adjacent to it), wherein:
the internal frame units are stacked and one end frame unit of the plurality of the end frame units is provided in each of opposite ends along a direction in which the internal frame units are stacked (internal frames are stacked and end plates are on either end, as described in col. 2 lines 63-68),
adjacent ones of the internal rims are welded to each other and one of the internal rims and the end rim adjacent to each other are welded to each other (see col. 2 lines 26-33 which disclose welding the frames together).
Bowen teaches welding the plates together, and teaches a value of a depth of about 0.002 to 0.003 inches (col. 4 lines 46-51), and a thickness of the internal plate/rim 3 of about 0.05 inches (col. 2 lines 63-68). While Bowen does not teach the exact claimed range, it does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
PNG
media_image1.png
1170
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Bowen further discloses the positive pole includes a positive current collector, and the negative pole includes a negative current collector (as described in col. 3 lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 4, Bowen further discloses the width of the rims are about 0.05 inches and teaches that the thickness of the bipolar plate is less than the thickness of the rim (see claim 6 of Bowen which teaches that the thickness of the bipolar plate is less than the thickness/width of the frame), but does not explicitly teach a ratio of the value of the width of the internal rim or the end rim to a value indicating a thickness of the bipolar plate is between 2.0 times and 3.5 times, inclusive. However, Bowen teaches a range that overlaps the claimed range by stating that a value of the thickness of the bipolar plate is less than the width of the rims (which indicates a ratio of greater than 1). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Bowen further discloses the positive pole includes a positive current collector, and the negative pole includes a negative current collector (see col. 3 lines 32-37 which discloses current collectors for each pole).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 5,035,045) in view of Douglas (US 2012/0045691).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Bowen teaches the use of a sulfuric acid electrolyte but does not teach the material that the current collectors are made from. More specifically, Bowen does not teach:
wherein the positive current collector and the negative current collector are made of lead or a lead alloy.
Douglas also discloses a battery structure (see abstract).
Douglas teaches that electrolytes can cause degradation of the current collector if not made of an appropriate material and teaches that lead is an effective current collector material to ward off electrolyte degradation while also providing the needed electrical conductivity (paragraph 93).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the lead current collector of Douglas to the positive and negative current collectors of Bowen in order to ward off electrolyte degradation while also providing the needed electrical conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights