DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 22-40 are currently pending. Claims 2-21 are cancelled. New claim 40 has been added. The previous objections to claims 21, 29, and 36 are withdrawn. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 102 and 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1 and 22-40 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections.
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, 22-29, 31, and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al (US 2012/0156559) in view of Xie (US 2013/0115505) and further in view of Lev (US 2013/0130096).
Regarding claims 1, 22-29, 31, and 33-40, Davies et al discloses a bipolar lead-acid battery (battery assembly) comprising:
a stack of a plurality of electrode plates comprising:
one or more bipolar electrodes (bipolar plates) comprising a substrate having a negative paste (anode) is on one surface and positive paste (cathode) is on an opposing surface ([0049]);
a positive monopole (first monopolar plate) having a first substrate with a positive paste (cathode) on one surface of the substrate and located at an end of the stack ([0002],[0050]); and
a negative monopole (second monopolar plate) having a second substrate with a negative paste (anode) on one surface of the substrate and located at an opposing end of the stack as the positive monopole ([0002],[0050]);
an acid electrolyte (liquid electrolyte) located between each pair of the bipolar electrodes, wherein the electrolyte functions with an anode and cathode pair to form one or more electrochemical cells ([0007]);
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are each comprised of thermoplastic material (non-conductive polymer) ([0051]);
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate each include:
a raised edge comprising the thermoplastic material and molded about a periphery of the first substrate and the second substrate, and configured to mate and stack with an adjacent edge of another electrode plate (Fig. 2);
a plurality of ribs (internal reinforcement structure) comprising the thermoplastic material (non-conductive polymer) and molded with the periphery of and into the first substrate or second substrate and includes a plurality of rib structures which form an intersecting pattern (Fig. 1); and
wherein the positive monopole and the negative monopole are opposing end plates of the bipolar battery and the bipolar battery is free of end plates which are not the electrode plates ([0002]);
wherein the plurality of rib structures project from the positive monopole and the negative monopole away from the one or more bipolar electrodes (Fig. 1);
wherein the plurality of rib structures are in a lattice pattern (Fig. 1);
wherein the positive monopole and the negative monopole are attached to the bipolar electrodes so that the bipolar electrodes are reinforced ([0002],[0007],[0048]-[0054] and Figs. 1 and 2).
However, Davies et al does not expressly teach the one or more bipolar plates, the first monopolar plate, the second monopolar plate, and the one or more separators each including one or more openings; wherein the one or more opening of the one or more bipolar plates, the first monopolar plate, the second monopolar plate, and the one or more separators are aligned with each other in a transverse direction; and form one or more channels which pass through the one or more electrochemical cells such as to pass through active material and the liquid electrolyte of the electrochemical cells (claim 1); wherein the one or more bipolar plates, the first monopolar plate, and the second monopolar plate each include an insert molded therein to form a plurality of inserts and the one or more openings of each of the one or more bipolar plates, the first monopolar plate, and the second monopolar plate pass through a respective insert; and wherein the plurality of inserts are molded to and formed of the same non-conductive polymer as the substrate of the one or more bipolar plates, the first substrate, and the second substrate such that the raised edge, the internal reinforcement structure, and one or more of the plurality of inserts are all integrally molded together as part of the first substrate and the raised edge, the internal reinforcement structure and one or more of the plurality of inserts are all integrally molded together as part of the second substrate (claims 22 and 37); wherein the plurality of inserts are aligned and interlocked with one another along the transverse direction to form one or more channels (claims 23 and 38); wherein the one or more channels extend transversely through and are integrated into the one or more stacks of the plurality of electrode plates; wherein the one or more channels pass through active material of the anodes and the cathodes of the plurality of electrode plates; and wherein the one or more channels pass through the liquid electrolyte within the electrochemical cells such that the liquid electrolyte is located about an exterior of the one or more channels while the one or more inserts prevent leakage of the liquid electrolyte into the one or more channels (claims 24, 38, and 39); wherein one or more posts are located in one or more of the channels and extend from the first monopolar plate to the second monopolar plate (claim 29); one or more openings of each of the one or more bipolar plates, the first monopolar plate, the second monopolar plate, and the one or more separators are aligned with each other in a transverse direction and have one or more posts extending therethrough; wherein the one or more opening of the one or more bipolar plates, the first monopolar plate, the second monopolar plate, and the one or more separators are aligned with each other in a transverse direction; and form one or more channels which pass through the one or more electrochemical cells such as to pass through active material and the liquid electrolyte of the electrochemical cells (claim 36).
Xie teaches the concept of forming a plurality of holes “104H”, “106H”, and “108H” (openings) in cathodes “104”, anodes “106”, and separators “106”, wherein the plurality of holes are aligned in a transverse direction; wherein the plurality holes each include a plurality of bushing tubes “110” (inserts) that are generally aligned and interlocked with each other to form a continuous channel extending transversely through and are integrated into the battery assembly “140” (stack of electrode plates), wherein the channel pass through the active material of the anodes and the cathodes of the plurality of electrode plates and pass through the liquid electrolyte within the battery cells “150” (electrochemical cells); wherein the bushing tubes form a leakproof seal that prevents leakage of the liquid electrolyte into the channels ([0023],[0027],[0029]) and Fig. 2 and 5); and a first end “182” (post) located in the channel and extend from the first monopolar plate to the second monopolar plate (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Davies bipolar battery to include one or more bipolar plates, first monopolar plate, second monopolar plate, and one or more separators each including one or more openings; wherein the one or more opening of the one or more bipolar plates, the first monopolar plate, the second monopolar plate, and the one or more separators are aligned with each other in a transverse direction and form one or more channels which pass through the one or more electrochemical cells such as to pass through active material and the liquid electrolyte of the electrochemical cells; wherein the one or more openings of each of the one or more bipolar plates, the first monopolar plate, and the second monopolar plate each include an insert therein to form a plurality of inserts; wherein the plurality of inserts are aligned and interlocked with one another along the transverse direction to form one channel; wherein the one or more channels extend transversely through and are integrated into the one or more stacks of the plurality of electrode plates; wherein the one or more channels pass through active material and the liquid electrolyte of the electrochemical cells; and wherein the one or more channels pass through the liquid electrolyte within the electrochemical cells such that the liquid electrolyte is located about an exterior of the one or more channels while the one or more inserts prevent leakage of the liquid electrolyte into the channel; one or more posts that are located in one more of the channels and extend from the first monopolar plate to the second monopolar plate in order to provide a continuous cooling channel that allows internal heat generated by the cells to be transferred away from the cells ([0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Davies/Xie bipolar battery to include plurality of inserts that are molded to and formed of the same non-conductive polymer as the substrate of the one or more bipolar plates, the first substrate, and the second substrate such that the raised edge, the internal reinforcement structure, and one or more of the plurality of inserts are all integrally molded together as part of the first substrate and the raised edge, the internal reinforcement structure and one or more of the plurality of inserts are all integrally molded together as part of the second substrate because integrally molding the inserts and the internal reinforcement structure formed of the same non-conductive polymer as the substrates is an obvious choice in design which one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make in order to utilize a conventional injection molding process to simplify the formation of complex structures of the substrates (Concrete Unlimited Inc. v. Cementcraft Inc. 227 USPQ 784 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
However, Davies et al as modified by Xie does not expressly teach one or more separators located between the anode and the cathode of the one or more electrochemical cells (claims 1 and 36).
Lev discloses a bipolar battery comprising separators “240” that complete a cell with the adjacent bipolar electrode assembly ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Davies/Xie bipolar battery to include one or more separators located between the anode and the cathode of the one or more electrochemical cells because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 28 and 40, Davies et al as modified by Xie does not expressly teach one or more of the plurality of rib structures that intersect, merge, or both with one or more openings, one or more inserts within one or more openings, or both of the first substrate and/or the second substrate (claims 28 and 40).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Davies/Xie bipolar battery to include a plurality of rib structures that intersect, merge, or both with the one or more openings, one or more inserts within the one or more openings, or both of the first substrate and/or the second substrate because the location of the inserts within the plurality of rib structures is an obvious choice in design which one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make based upon the plurality of ribs taught by Davies and the central location of the inserts taught by Xie (Concrete Unlimited Inc. v. Cementcraft Inc. 227 USPQ 784 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Regarding claims 31 and 33, Davies et al also discloses a positive monopole that is attached about a periphery and an inner surface within the periphery to one of the bipolar electrodes which is adjacent to the positive monopole; and a negative monopole that is attached about a periphery and an inner surface within the periphery to one of the bipolar electrodes which is adjacent to the negative monopole; wherein the periphery of the positive monopole and the periphery of the negative monopole are interlocked with one or more raised edges of one or more of the bipolar electrodes (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 35, the Office takes the position that the Davies positive monopole and negative monopole are inherently capable of reinforcing the bipolar electrodes (bipolar plates / electrode plates) during an evacuation of about 5 psi to about 30 psi prior to filling with the liquid electrolyte such that the liquid electrolyte is able to be drawn into the one of more electrochemical cells.
Claims 22 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al in view of Xie and Lev as applied to claims 1 and 36 above, and further in view of Hock et al (WO 2008/100207 A1).
However, Davies et al as modified by Xie and Lev does not expressly teach plurality of inserts that are molded to and formed of the same non-conductive polymer as the substrate of the one or more bipolar plates, the first substrate, and the second substrate such that the raised edge, the internal reinforcement structure, and one or more of the plurality of inserts are all integrally molded together as part of the first substrate and the raised edge, the internal reinforcement structure and one or more of the plurality of inserts are all integrally molded together as part of the second substrate because integrally molding the inserts and the internal reinforcement structure formed of the same non-conductive polymer as the substrates (claims 22 and 37).
Hock et al teaches the concept of forming sealing parts (substrates) by injection molding process, wherein other parts may also be molded simultaneously, e.g. circumscribing the hole of a gas channel in the structural part (pg. 26, lines 7-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Davies/Xie/Lev bipolar battery to include plurality of inserts that are molded to and formed of the same non-conductive polymer as the substrate of the one or more bipolar plates, the first substrate, and the second substrate such that the raised edge, the internal reinforcement structure, and one or more of the plurality of inserts are all integrally molded together as part of the first substrate and the raised edge, the internal reinforcement structure and one or more of the plurality of inserts are all integrally molded together as part of the second substrate because integrally molding the inserts and the internal reinforcement structure formed of the same non-conductive polymer as the substrates in order to simultaneously mold the inserts in a overmolding process, thereby simplify the formation of complex structures of the substrates.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al in view of Xie and Lev as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Koo et al (US 6139987).
However, Davies et al as modified by Xie and Lev does not expressly teach one or more posts having on each end an overlapping portion which engages the outside surfaces of the first monopolar plate and the second monopolar plate so that the overlapping portion applies pressure onto the outside surfaces.
Koo et al discloses anode pin “19” and cathode pin “25” having on each end an overlapping portion which engages the outside surfaces of the first end and the second end so that the overlapping portion inherently applies pressure onto the outside surfaces (col. 1, lines 38-47 and col. 2, line 45 to col. 3, line 44 and Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Davies/Xie/Lev bipolar battery to include one or more posts having on each end an overlapping portion which engages the outside surfaces of the first monopolar plate and the second monopolar plate so that the overlapping portion applies pressure onto the outside surfaces in order to further secure the stacking structure of negative monopole, positive monopole and the bipolar electrodes.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies et al in view of Xie and Lev as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Willson et al (US 2006/0003223).
However, Davies et al as modified by Xie and Lev does not expressly teach an inner surface within the periphery of the first monopolar plate that is heat-staked to one of the bipolar plates adjacent to the first monopolar plate; and wherein the inner surface within the periphery of the second monopolar plate that is heat-staked to one of the bipolar plates adjacent to the second monopolar plate.
Willson et al teaches the concept of bonding components of a bipolar electrochemical cell with heat stakes ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Davies/Xie/Lev bipolar battery to include an inner surface within the periphery of the first monopolar plate that is heat-staked to one of the bipolar plates adjacent to the first monopolar plate; and wherein the inner surface within the periphery of the second monopolar plate that is heat-staked to one of the bipolar plates adjacent to the second monopolar plate in order to securely bond the plates together, thereby improving the seal between the plates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “The Office Action does not present evidence that Davies teaches wherein the first monopolar plate and the second monopolar plate, which have a first and second substrate with a raised edge and internal reinforcement structure, are the opposing end plates of the battery assembly and the battery assembly is free of end plates which are not any of the electrode plates. Looking at FIGS. 1-2, there are smooth end plates at the end of the structure separate from any gridded frames.
Further, Lev, which is used to cure deficiencies of Davies, teaches away from the use of monopolar plates as the end plates by specifically teaching the use of separate plates 232 coupled to end plates (par. 0029 and FIG. 2). In other words, the plates 232 are the true end plates.
Fourth, Office Action does not present evidence Davies teaches both a first and second monopolar plate having respective first and second substrates, each substrate having (i) a raised edge comprising the non-conductive polymer and molded about a periphery of the first substrate or the second substrate and configured to mate and stack with an adjacent edge of a separator or another electrode plate; (ii) an internal reinforcement structure comprising the non-conductive polymer and molded within the periphery of and into the first substrate or the second substrate and includes a plurality of rib structures which form an intersecting pattern”.
In response, the Office first points out that Davies discloses that “Bipolar batteries are known in the art. The batteries comprise a plurality or assembly of bipolar substrates connected in series. At one end of the assembly of bipolar substrate is a positive monopole. At the other end of the assembly of bipolar substrates is the negative monopole” (see [0002]). So, based on this disclosure of a conventional bipolar battery, smooth end plates are not necessarily present and can be considered optional. Also, there is no teaching of any end plates throughout the specification of Davies. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the Davies battery assembly is free of end plates which are not the plurality of electrode plates. With respect to the Lev reference, Lev is relied upon for teaching separators between bipolar electrodes (bipolar plates) and does not teach away from monopolar plates as end plates because Lev teaches positive and negative end plates 220 and 230 which can be construed as a positive monopolar plate 220 and a negative monopolar plate 230. As shown in Fig. 2 below, Davies does teach a first substrate and a second substrate that each includes a raised edge about a periphery of the first substrate or the second substrate and internal reinforcement structure including a plurality of rib structures.
[AltContent: textbox (raised edge mating and stack with an adjacent edge of another electrode plate)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (internal reinforcement structure
w/ rib structures forming an intersecting pattern)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first substrate / second substrate)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
1188
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant further argues that “there is no evidence that Xie compensates for the deficiencies of Davies discussed with respect to Claim 1. The Office Action relies on Xie for features relating to aligned openings and channel structures; however, Xie is directed to lithium-ion prismatic cells (paras. 001-004) and does not provide any teaching or suggestion regarding monopolar plates serving as the opposing end plates of a battery assembly. In particular, the Office Action presents evidence that neither Davies nor Xie discloses or suggests that the first and second monopolar plates are configured as the structural end plates of the battery assembly while also including the claimed reinforced substrates (e.g., raised edges and internal reinforcement structures). The Office presents evidence Davies merely identifies monopoles at opposing ends of a bipolar stack, without describing the required structure, and presents evidence Xie seems to re instead on tube, flange, pouch, and housing structures at the ends of the assembly rather than electrode plates themselves. Additionally, while differences in battery chemistry alone may not preclude combination, there remains a fundamental architectural mismatch between the references. Davies is directed to inductive sealing and assembly of bipolar battery elements, whereas Xie focuses on incorporating
cooling channels into a stacked pouch-cell configuration. Xie therefore does not cure the deficiency in Davies regarding the use of monopolar plates as reinforced end plates of the battery assembly, nor does it provide any guidance that would lead a skilled artisan to modify Davies in that manner”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As stated above in the 103 rejection and shown in annotated Fig. 2, Davies already teaches monopolar plates as reinforced end plates of the battery assembly. Xie is relied upon for teaching a plurality of bushing tubes “110” (inserts) that are generally aligned and interlocked with each other to form a continuous channel extending transversely through holes of cathodes, anodes, and separators of the battery assembly. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply the teachings of Xie to the Davies bipolar battery in order to provide a continuous cooling channel that allows internal heat generated by the cells to be transferred away from the cells.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights