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 Claims
Claims 1-3 were rejected in the Office Action from 03/31/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1 and 3, and added claims 4-5.
Clams 1-5 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s primarily argue that the Office has not demonstrated that the materials are the variable that affects Vicker Hardness and that other factors such as temperature, pressure, and processing duration may affect hardness.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office is not required to establish that the identified compositional variables are the exclusive variables affecting hardness. Rather, it is sufficient that the prior art recognizes that the property at issue is affected by the variable being optimized.
In the present case, Kondo expressly teaches that Ca is added to improve the hardness (see Office Action from 03/31/2026, page 4, lines 23-24). Thus, Kondo itself establishes that the calcium content affects alloy hardness. The fact that the other processing parameters may additionally influence hardness does not negate Kondo’s express recognition of the relationship between calcium and hardness. In addition, the claim is silent with regards to any of the parameters mentioned.
Further, Kondo’s disclosed Ca range overlaps the presently claimed range. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to select and optimize the calcium content within Kondo’s disclosed range to obtain a desired hardness through routine experimentation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0221191).
Regarding claims 1-2, Kondo teaches a current collector sheet for a lead-acid storage battery (paragraph [0002], [0017]-[0018]) (see figure 6-7), wherein the current collector sheet:
is formed of a lead alloy (paragraph [0024]) in which a content ratio of tin (Sn) is 1.3 to 3.0 wt%, a content ratio of calcium is 0.01 to 0.05 wt %, and a balance is lead (Pb) and unavoidable impurities (i.e., Sr) (paragraph [0024]);
has a Vickers hardness of 12 when measured by a micro-Vickers hardness test specified in JIS Z2244:2009 (see figure 3) (paragraph [0014], [0034]); and
further, Kondo uses a current collector with a thickness ranging from 0.2 to 1.0mm (paragraphs [0031], [0041]-[0043], [0052], [0061]).
The only difference in the hardness is that Kondo teaches 12 whereas the claimed hardness is 10 or less. However, Kondo teaches that the element Ca is added to improve hardness of the alloy (paragraph [0024]). As such, it would be obvious to observe a decrease in hardness if less calcium is added. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to select and optimize the calcium content to obtain a desired hardness through routine experimentation.
It is noted that Kondo differ in the exact same content range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the content range of Kond) overlap the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that 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).
It is noted that Kondo discloses elemental composition in terms of weight percent whereas the claim recites mass percent. It is well established, however, that in common practice the term “weight” is frequently used interchangeably with “mass,” given that gravitational acceleration on Earth is effectively constant1. From a physics standpoint, mass quantifies the amount of matter in an object, whereas weight represents the force exerted on that mass due to gravity. These quantities are related by Newton’s Second Law, expressed as:
M
=
W
g
, where g is the acceleration due to gravity (approximately 9.8 m/s2 on Earth). Because Kondo expresses components in quantities as weight percent (
%
b
y
w
e
i
g
h
t
=
w
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
w
t
o
t
a
l
x
100
), the proportional relationship ensures that the gravitational constant cancels when converting from weight to mass. Accordingly, the reported weight percent values are directly equivalent to mass percent values.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0221191) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masanori et al. (JP5263166B2).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of JP5263166B2. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 3, Kondo teaches a bipolar lead-acid storage battery (paragraph [0002]), comprising:
a plurality of cell members (i.e., plate group) (13) (paragraph [0058]) (see figure7) each including a positive electrode (10) including a positive electrode current collector plate and a positive active material layer (paragraph [0045], [0058]) (see figure 7), a negative electrode (11) including a negative electrode current collector plate and a negative active material layer (paragraph [0043], [0058]) (see figure 7), and a separator (12) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see figure 7) (paragraph [0058]), wherein the plurality of cell members are arranged in a stack manner with intervals (see figure 7); wherein
a frame body (i.e., case) (14) surrounds a side surface of the cell member (see figure 7) (paragraph [0058]);
the plurality of cell members are electrically connected in series (paragraph [0058]), and the frame bodies adjacent to each other are joined to each other (see figure 7); and
the positive electrode current collector plate is the current collector sheet for a lead-acid storage battery according to claim 1 (paragraph [0058]).
Kondo does not teach the limitations “a plurality of space forming members each forming a plurality of spaces for individually housing the plurality of cell members, wherein: the space forming member includes a resin substrate that covers at least one of a side of the positive electrode and a side of the negative electrode of the cell member, the cell member and the substrate of the space forming member are arranged to be alternately stacked; and the positive electrode current collector plate is attached to a surface of the substrate.”.
Masanori, also directed to a bipolar lead-acid storage battery (paragraph [0001]-[0003]), teaches a plurality of cell members (i.e., bipolar plate) (10) having a positive electrode (3), negative electrode (4) and a separator (1) (paragraph [0035]-[0036], [0039]) (see figure 1). Further Masanori teaches a plurality of space forming members (i.e., resin seal) (8a) each forming a plurality of spaces for individually housing the plurality of cell members (see figure 1) (paragraph [0019), wherein: the space forming member includes a resin substrate (i.e., resin seal) that covers at least one of a side of the positive electrode and a side of the negative electrode of the cell member (see figure 1) (paragraph [0019]). Masanori teaches this configuration with the space forming members suppress leak of electrolytic solution and improve durability of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Kondo to include have the configuration of the plurality of space forming members as claimed and suggested by Masanori, in order to suppress leak of electrolytic solution and improve durability of the battery.
Regarding claim 4, Kondo teaches the current collector sheet as described above in claim 1 which is made of the lead alloy.
Kondo does not teach the current collector sheet is a rolled sheet.
However, Masanori teaches the current collector is a rolled sheet which suppress deformation and short circuit (paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kondo battery into a cylindrical battery (common and well know shape in batteries), requiring the assembly including the current collector to be rolled in order to suppress deformation and short circuit, as suggested by Masoneri.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate either:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2.
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art whether alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claim 5 in combination with the features of independent claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0145613). Wang teaches a lead alloy having 0.01% of Ca (i.e., 99.99% lead) and a Vicker hardness of 10 (paragraph [0026]). Further, Wang teaches a skilled artisan can optimize the hardness of the alloy for use (paragraph [0026]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
1 See https://sciencenotes.org/mass-vs-weight-the-difference-between-mass-and-weight/
Prosecution Insights