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 .
Status of the Claims
The preliminary amendment submitted 18/21/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claim 19 is new. Claims 1-19 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “the pure lead material of the pure lead battery grids comprises tin (Sn).” However, the specification as filed does not provide support for tin provided at an amount greater than zero. It is acknowledged that the claim has implicit bounds on the amount of tin in view of the lead composition recited in claim 16 (that is, the tin is present in an amount of approximately 0.001 % to 0.15 %). However, the only support cited by applicant for the presence of tin is the table at pg. 8 which recites a minimum of 0.005 % and a maximum of 0.5 % (though this upper bound is impossible given the claimed amount of lead).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “pure lead material.” The term “pure lead” can be interpreted in several ways, from consisting of lead and unavoidable impurities, to specific standards having a defined amount of lead, etc. Applicant’s disclosure renders the term “pure lead” indefinite as the “pure lead material” can include many additional elements in defined ratios. See the specification as filed at pg. 7, line 5 to pg. 8, line 4. Claims 4-11 do not resolve the issue and are rejected for the same reason through their dependency on claim 1. Claims 2 and 4 resolve the issue as they each recite the amount of lead.
Regarding claims 2-4, 12, 16, each of these claims recites a range of an element (e.g. Pb, Ca) but is not clear on what basis the range is. Weight basis? Molar basis? Applicant is asked for clarification. For the purpose of this Office action, the range will be interpreted broadly. Claims 13-15 and 17-19 do not resolve the issue and are rejected for the same reason through their dependency on claims 12 or 16.
The term “approximately” in claims 2-4, 7, 9-13, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the amounts of materials and the temperatures indefinite. For the purpose of this Office action, the range will be interpreted broadly. Claims 13-15 and 17-18 depend from claims 12 or 16 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0182487 A1 (“Wirtz”).
Regarding claim 1, Wirtz discloses a method of making battery plates of lead battery grids for lead-acid battery manufacture (Abstract; Fig. 1).
The method comprises continuously casting a continuous strip of pure lead battery grids to produce a cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids 24, the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids composed of a pure lead material ([0022]). Given the composition of the lead alloy disclosed in paragraph [0045] (a lead alloy containing about 0.03% to 0.12% calcium and about 0% to 2.5% tin), the lead alloy is interpreted as reading on pure lead in view of the 112(b) rejection above.
The method further comprises advancing the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids through at least one pair of compression rollers 32, 34, 36, 38 under cold-working conditions in order to reduce a thickness dimension of the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids, producing a cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids 24’ ([0024]-[0025], [0042]-[0045], [0051]-[0056]).
It is deemed that imparting hardness is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed use of the at least one pair of compression rollers under cold-working conditions. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
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).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
The method further comprises applying an electrochemically-active battery paste material to the cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids ([0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Wirtz discloses the method of claim 1. Wirtz discloses a suitable machine for continuously pasting the web is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,606,383, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference ([0032]). U.S. Pat. No. 4,606,383 discloses a battery grid pasting machine has an endless steel conveyor belt for advancing grids beneath a paste hopper (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Wirtz discloses the method of claim 1. Wirtz discloses a peak metal temperature of the cold-working conditions in the range of 35°F to 180°F ([0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Wirtz discloses the method of claim 1. Wirtz discloses a peak metal temperature of the cold-working conditions in the range of 50°F to 90°F ([0044]). This is considered to anticipate the range of “approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 80°F.”
Regarding claim 11, Wirtz discloses the method of claim 1. Wirtz discloses the thickness of the as cast web 24 is reduced by between 1.5:1 to 2:1 (i.e. the thickness is reduced by 33% to 50%) ([0042]-[0043]) or the thickness of the as cast web 24 is reduced at least about 17% or about 1.2:1 to 33% or less than 1.5:1 ([0051]-[0052]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2002/0182487 A1 (“Wirtz”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2002/0182487 A1 (“Wirtz”) in view of CN 111864201 A (“Liu” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 6, Wirtz discloses the method of claim 1. As the method of Wirtz is presumed to practiced in typical air which contains some amount of water vapor, surfaces of the cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids are considered to be “treated” with water vapor prior to applying the electrochemically-active battery paste material. However, even if Wirtz is not considered to disclose the treating with water vapor, this would have been obvious over Liu. Liu discloses pretreating a grid by aging. The aging temperature is 85℃ and the aging humidity is 70%. Hydrogen peroxide steam is introduced into the aging and hardening chamber for 7 to 9 hours. The hydrogen peroxide steam is made from a hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution with a content of 10 to 15%. After the aging is completed, the grid is naturally air-dried until there is no water vapor on the surface of the grid ([0066]). The aging facilitates the bonding between the lead paste and the grid, reduces the resistance between the lead paste and the grid, and improves the charging acceptance of the plate ([0067]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aging of Liu to facilitate the bonding between the lead paste and the grid, reduce the resistance between the lead paste and the grid, and improve the charging acceptance of the plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-4, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0182487 A1 (“Wirtz”).
Regarding claims 2-4, Wirtz discloses the method of claim 1. Regarding the amount of calcium in claims 2 and 3, as the range includes zero calcium is interpreted as not required. Wirtz does not expressly disclose the pure lead material of the pure lead battery grids comprises lead (Pb) in an amount of approximately 99.85 percent (%) to 99.999 % of overall constituent elements of the pure lead material. However, Wirtz discloses a lead alloy containing about 0.03% to 0.12% calcium and about 0% to 2.5% tin ([0045]). The compositional range taught by Wirtz therefore overlaps the claimed composition. The amount of lead would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the amounts disclosed by Wirtz overlap the amounts as claimed. 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). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Wirtz discloses a method of making battery plates of lead battery grids for lead-acid battery manufacture (Abstract; Fig. 1).
The method comprises continuously casting a continuous strip of pure lead battery grids to produce a cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids 24, the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids composed of a pure lead material ([0022]).
Wirtz does not expressly disclose the pure lead material comprising lead (Pb) in an amount of approximately 99.85 percent (%) to 99.999 % of overall constituent elements of the pure lead material. However, Wirtz discloses a lead alloy containing about 0.03% to 0.12% calcium and about 0% to 2.5% tin ([0045]). The compositional range taught by Wirtz therefore overlaps the claimed composition. The amount of lead would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the amounts disclosed by Wirtz overlap the amounts as claimed. 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). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Wirtz discloses the method further comprises advancing the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids through at least one pair of compression rollers 32, 34, 36, 38 under cold-working conditions in order to reduce a thickness dimension of the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids, producing a cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids 24’ ([0024]-[0025], [0042]-[0045], [0051]-[0056]).
It is deemed that imparting hardness is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed use of the at least one pair of compression rollers under cold-working conditions. See the sections of MPEP 2112 cited above.
The method further comprises applying an electrochemically-active battery paste material to the cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids ([0032]).
Wirtz discloses a peak metal temperature of the cold-working conditions in the range of 35°F to 180°F ([0044]). This is necessarily provided prior to advancing the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids through the at least one pair of compression rollers as the lead is cast at elevated temperatures and cooled in water bath 66.
Regarding claim 13, Wirtz discloses the method of claim 1. Wirtz discloses the thickness of the as cast web 24 is reduced by between 1.5:1 to 2:1 (i.e. the thickness is reduced by 33% to 50%) ([0042]-[0043]) or the thickness of the as cast web 24 is reduced at least about 17% or about 1.2:1 to 33% or less than 1.5:1 ([0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 16, Wirtz discloses a method of making battery plates of lead battery grids for lead-acid battery manufacture (Abstract; Fig. 1).
The method comprises continuously casting a continuous strip of pure lead battery grids to produce a cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids 24, the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids composed of a pure lead material ([0022]).
Wirtz does not expressly disclose the pure lead material comprising lead (Pb) in an amount of approximately 99.85 percent (%) to 99.999 % of overall constituent elements of the pure lead material. However, Wirtz discloses a lead alloy containing about 0.03% to 0.12% calcium and about 0% to 2.5% tin ([0045]). The compositional range taught by Wirtz therefore overlaps the claimed composition. The amount of lead would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the amounts disclosed by Wirtz overlap the amounts as claimed. 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). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Wirtz discloses the method further comprises advancing the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids through at least one pair of compression rollers 32, 34, 36, 38 under cold-working conditions in order to reduce a thickness dimension of the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids, producing a cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids 24’ ([0024]-[0025], [0042]-[0045], [0051]-[0056]).
It is deemed that imparting hardness is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed use of the at least one pair of compression rollers under cold-working conditions. See the sections of MPEP 2112 cited above.
Wirtz discloses a peak metal temperature of the cold-working conditions in the range of 35°F to 180°F ([0044]). This is necessarily provided prior to advancing the cast continuous strip of pure lead battery grids through the at least one pair of compression rollers as the lead is cast at elevated temperatures and cooled in water bath 66.
Wirtz discloses the thickness of the as cast web 24 is reduced by between 1.5:1 to 2:1 (i.e. the thickness is reduced by 33% to 50%) ([0042]-[0043]) or the thickness of the as cast web 24 is reduced at least about 17% or about 1.2:1 to 33% or less than 1.5:1 ([0051]-[0052]).
The method further comprises applying an electrochemically-active battery paste material to the cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids ([0032]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0182487 A1 (“Wirtz”) in view of CN 111864201 A (“Liu” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 7, Wirtz discloses the method of claim 6. As discussed above, Liu teaches the aging is aging temperature is 85℃ ([0066]). Therefore, the water vapor is provided at this temperature. While Liu does not expressly disclose the claimed temperature (approximately 40 to 60 °C), this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention over Liu. Liu discusses the temperature in the context of rapid aging, that is that the higher temperature ages the surface of the grid faster. This necessarily comes with higher heating costs. A lower temperature may be desirable to a person having ordinary skill in the art if decreased costs, rather than decreased processing time, are prioritized.
Claims 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0182487 A1 (“Wirtz”) in view of JP 2005-294024 A (“Okada” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 17, Wirtz discloses the method of claims 1, 13, and 16. Wirtz does not expressly disclose comprising contacting surfaces of the cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids with an aqueous solution consisting essentially of hydrogen peroxide in water prior to applying the electrochemically-active battery paste material.
Okada discloses a method of preparing an electrode for a lead-acid battery (Abstract; [0013], [0025]). The method comprises preparing a lead alloy sheet, degreasing and washing the sheet, then immersing in a mixed solution of acetic acid and a hydrogen peroxide solution to clean the surface prior to applying an electrochemically-active battery paste material ([0051]-[0052]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contact surfaces of the grids with the solution taught by Okada to wash the surfaces.
It is noted that for the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 and MPEP 2111.03(II).
Claims 14 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0182487 A1 (“Wirtz”) as applied to claims 13 and 16 above, and further in view of CN 111864201 A (“Liu” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Wirtz discloses the method of claims 13 and 16. As the method of Wirtz is presumed to be practiced in typical air which contains some amount of water vapor, surfaces of the cast and rolled continuous strip of pure lead battery grids are considered to be “treated” with water vapor prior to applying the electrochemically-active battery paste material. However, even if Wirtz is not considered to disclose the treating with water vapor, this would have been obvious over Liu. Liu discloses pretreating a grid by aging. The aging temperature is 85℃ and the aging humidity is 70%. Hydrogen peroxide steam is introduced into the aging and hardening chamber for 7 to 9 hours. The hydrogen peroxide steam is made from a hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution with a content of 10 to 15%. After the aging is completed, the grid is naturally air-dried until there is no water vapor on the surface of the grid ([0066]). The aging facilitates the bonding between the lead paste and the grid, reduces the resistance between the lead paste and the grid, and improves the charging acceptance of the plate ([0067]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aging of Liu to facilitate the bonding between the lead paste and the grid, reduce the resistance between the lead paste and the grid, and improve the charging acceptance of the plate.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0182487 A1 (“Wirtz”) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2022/0328844 A1 (“Mizoguchi”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wirtz discloses the method of claim 16. The instant claim contains an implicit range of tin in view of the lead composition recited in claim 16 (that is, the tin is present in an amount of approximately 0.001 % to 0.15 %). Wirtz discloses a lead alloy containing about 0% to 2.5% tin ([0045]). Wirtz does not expressly disclose the claimed amount of tin.
Mizoguchi discloses a positive electrode current collector for a lead-acid battery (Abstract). The current collector contains calcium and tin ([0129]). The Sn content of the positive current collector or the lead alloy constituting the positive current collector may be, for example, 0 to 0.01% by mass. When the positive current collector contains Ca, corrosion resistance of the alloy constituting the positive current collector is improved by containing Sn ([0132]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include tin as taught by Mizoguchi to improve the corrosion resistance of the alloy constituting the positive current collector.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights