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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Application No. 18/694,610 to Whitman et al., assigned to Advanced Battery Concepts, LLC, Clare, Michigan, USA, filed on 03/22/2024, and published as U.S. PG Publication 2024/0429581 A1 on 12/26/2024. The application is a 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage entry of International Patent Application PCT/US2022/044385 filed 09/22/2022, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/246,931, filed on 09/22/2021.
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims filed on 03/22/2024 stand as follows:
3.1 Currently amended 1, 3, 6, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, 26-28, 30, 35,
48, 54, 60, 62, 73, 76, 78
3.2 Canceled 2, 7, 9, 12-13, 16, 19-25, 29, 31-34, 36-47,49-
53, 55-59, 61, 63-72, 74-75, 77, 79-88
3.3 Original 4-5
Claim 1, 3-6, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, 26-28, 30, 35, 48, 54, 60, 62, 73,76, 78 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. A duly initialed and signed copy is attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statement is being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/22/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 48, 54, 60, 62, 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clough et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,068,160) in view of Eisenhut et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,401,279) and Bant (U.S. PG Publication 4,200,683; cited in IDS dated 03/22/2024).
Regarding claim 1 Clough discloses a plurality of bipolar cells and a method of providing each cell having a negative electrodes, a positive electrode, a separator between electrodes, and an electrolyte (Clough col. 2, lines 30-41), equivalent to a method of preparing a battery assembly.
(a) The method comprises filling the battery cells, equivalent to the battery assembly, with an electrolyte, and the electrolyte can be sulfuric acid (Clough co. 2, lines 42-47), considered equivalent to electrolyte having one or more reactant since the Instant Specification discloses the electrolyte to be sulfuric acid and recognizes it having one or more reactant (Instant Specification paragraph 0155).
(b) Clough is silent about pickling the battery assembly. Eisenhut discloses a lead-acid storage batteries with electrolyte (Eisenhut col. 3, line 45-46), where forming sulfuric acid is added to the battery and the sulfuric acid reacts exothermically with the lead oxide to form a lead sulfate in both the positive and negative electrodes in a process often referred to as “pickling” (Eisenhut col. 1, line 53-56), which in the forming step the lead sulfate is converted to lead oxide in the positive electrode, lead in the negative electrode and to constitute sulfuric acid in the electrolyte (Eisenhut col. 1. Line 63-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have carried a pickling step on the battery of Clough so as convert the lead oxide on the surface of the electrodes to lead sulfate and facilitate the forming step (Eisenhut col. 1, lines 63-68). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
(c) Clough is also silent about forming the battery assembly by applying an electric charge. Eisenhut discloses electrolytic formation of the battery follows the pickling step and involves passing forming current, equivalent to applying an electric charge, through the battery to convert the lead sulfate in the electrode to lead dioxide in the positive electrode, lead in the negative electrode, and to reconstitute sulfuric acid in the electrolyte (Eisenhut col. 1, lines 63-68).
(d) Clough discloses the step of evacuating the cell prior to introducing the electrolyte (Clough col. 4, 38-40) and the cycle of evacuation-electrolyte addition may be repeated more than one time (Clough col. 4, line 40-43); but Clough is silent about the steps of drying and temporary storing the battery assembly after draining and then refilling the battery assembly.
Bant discloses a method of producing dry, charged lead-acid batteries, wherein the method involves forming plates of the battery, removing the formation electrolyte, equivalent to the draining of the battery assembly, and then washing and (e) drying and sealing the battery (Bant col.1, lines 10-13); (f) the battery is then stored substantially without discharge and in addition transport of the battery is facilitated (Bant col.1, lines 13-16), and (g) when required for service activation of the battery is effected by adding sulfuric acid of a suitable specific gravity (Bant col.1, lines 17-19), equivalent to refilling the battery assembly with the liquid electrolyte after the temporary storing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery of Clough by the teaching of Bant and to have drained its electrolyte solution of the formed battery, dried it and stored it in dry state to prevent its discharge when stored for prolonged period of time as taught by Bant (Bant col. 1, line 5-8). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Eisenhut discloses that it is desirable to have the temperature of the element of the battery as low as possible at the beginning of formation so that undesirably high temperatures are not reached during formation (Eisenhut col. 2, line 5-8); thus, Eisenhut discloses controlling the temperature during forming, considered equivalent to a thermal control cycling during forming wherein the temperature inside the battery is not allowed to increase and is maintained below a threshold temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery of Clough by the disclosure of Eisenhut and to have prevented the temperature of the battery cell from increasing to undesirable levels in the forming step as taught by Eisenhut (Eisenhut col. 2, line 5-8) and to have included a thermal control cycle in the formation of the battery. According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Clough discloses a plurality of bipolar cells made a method of providing each cell having a negative electrodes, a positive electrode, a separator between electrodes, and an electrolyte (Clough col. 2, lines 30-41,).
Regarding claim 3 Clough discloses the battery assembly includes: a) a plurality of bipolar electrode plates stacked together to form an electrode plate stack; forming b) one or more electrochemical cells, wherein each electrochemical cell is formed between a pair of electrode plates; and c) one or more separators disposed within the one or more electrochemical cells (Clough Fig. 2, 4, 5, col. 3, lines 32-38).
Regarding claim 4 Clough discloses a plurality of means for introducing electrolyte into the plurality of bipolar cells of the batteries (Clough co. 2 lines 63-66) and wherein one or more conduit, considered equivalent to the claimed troughs are formed in each of the one or more electrochemical cells and adapted to guide flow of the one or more fluids into the one or more electrochemical cells (Clough col. 2 line 58-col. 3, line 1-8 ); and wherein the one or more conduit are formed in the one or more separators in a peripheral gap between the one or more separators and one or more frames of the plurality of electrode plates, in the plurality of electrode plates, or any combination thereof.(Clough Fig. 5 ).
Regarding claim 5 Clough is silent about the one or more conduit (Clough col. 2 line 58-col. 3, line 1-8 ) equivalent to the toughs include one or more branching conduits. However, it would have been obvious to have made the conduits branched for uniform distribution of the electrolyte, since making such a modification is considered duplication of parts, and according to the MPEP mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B
Regarding claim 6 Clough discloses the plurality of electrode plates and the one or more separators each include one or more apertures 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 69 (Clough Fig. 5, 8), equivalent to the openings, wherein the plurality of the one or more apertures (openings) include a plurality of fill openings which align together to form one or more fill channels which extend transversely through the electrode plate stack (Clough Fig. 5, 8); and wherein one or more conduit are in fluid communication with the one or more fill openings of the one or more separators, electrode plates, or both (Clough Fig. 5, 8).
Regarding claim 8 Clough discloses the battery assembly may include one or more conduit (Clough col. 2 line 58-col. 3, line 1-8 ) equivalent to the channels that may be formed by apertures considered equivalent to the openings. Clough discloses the apertures (opening) are sealed (Clough col. 4 lines 52-54), the seal is considered equivalent to the inserts, and may be part of (e.g., attached, integral) of the one or more electrode plates, separators, or both, and wherein the one or more openings are aligned to form one or more channels which pass through one or more active regions of the one or more electrochemical cells Clough Fig. 5, 8).
Regarding claim 10 Clough discloses a method of producing dry, charged lead-acid batteries, wherein the method involves forming plates of the battery, removing the formation electrolyte, equivalent to the draining of the battery assembly, and then washing and (e) drying and sealing the battery (Bant col.1, lines 10-13), but since Bant is silent about employing a drying fluid, the drying by Bant is considered to be accomplished without a drying fluid as claimed in the alternative in claim 10.
Regarding claim 14 Eisenhut discloses that it is desirable to have the temperature of the element of the battery as low as possible at the beginning of formation so that undesirably high temperatures are not reached during formation (Eisenhut col. 2, line 5-8), but is silent about the range of such drying temperature. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have optimized the drying temperature range by routine experimentation so that excessive drying heat is not used. According to the MPEP, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Regarding claim 15, 17, 18, Clough discloses to evacuate the cells prior to introducing electrolyte therein, and the cycle of evacuation-electrolyte addition may be repeated more than one time as recited in claim 17 (Clough col. 4, lines 38-41), the evacuation may be considered a thermal control cycle during the forming step, and the refilling is accomplished by the same sulfuric acid electrolyte that includes the one or more reactant there (Clough col.2, lines 43-46, col. 4, lines 38-41) as recited in claim 18.
Regarding claim 26, 27 and 28 Clough discloses a plurality of bipolar cells and a method of providing each cell having a negative electrodes, a positive electrode, a separator between electrodes, and an electrolyte (Clough col. 2, lines 30-41), the bipolar cells considered equivalent to a one or more electrochemical cell. The cells have plurality of electrode plates and the one or more separators each include one or more apertures 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 69 (Clough Fig. 5, 8) that define conduits, considered equivalent to channels, passing through the more than one ports, or apertures used to introduce electrolyte into the conduits, and also evacuate the cells (Clough col 4, line 35-40) such as during draining the electrolyte, or entering and exiting the drying fluid.
Regarding claim 48 Clough discloses the cells are evacuated prior to introducing the electrolyte therein (Clough col 4, line 35-40), considered equivalent to operation of forming occurs under vacuum.
Regard claim 54 Eisenhut discloses that it is desirable to have the temperature of the element of the battery as low as possible at the beginning of formation so that undesirably high temperatures are not reached during formation (Eisenhut col. 2, line 5-8); thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have chilled the electrolyte in the forming step so that undesirably high temperatures are not reached during formation (Eisenhut col. 2, line 5-8). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 60 the apertures are initially open and are used to introduce electrolyte into the conduits, and ultimately through the conduits into the bipolar cells (Plough col. 4, line 28-40).
Regarding claim 62 Bant discloses the battery is stored substantially without discharge (Bant col.1, lines 13-16), and when required for service activation of the battery is effected by adding sulfuric acid of a suitable specific gravity (Bant col.1, lines 17-19), Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that stored substantially can include the claimed time span of about 1 week to 10 years or less.
Regarding claim 78 Clough discloses wherein one or more conduit, equivalent to the channels, troughs, or both are in fluid communication with a headspace of the battery assembly (Clough Fig. 5, 8).
Claim 11, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clough et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,068,160) in view of Eisenhut et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,401,279) and Bant (U.S. PG Publication 4,200,683; cited in IDS dated 03/22/2024) as applied to claim 1, and further as evidenced by Kado (U.S. PG Publication 2014/0356659)
The discussion of Clough, Eisenhut and Bant as applied to claim 1 and is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 11, 30 Bant is silent about the drying is accomplished by vacuum drying. However, since any drying process that does not involve vacuum drying requires elevating the temperature of the object to be dried, it is concluded that the drying by Bant includes heat evaporation drying as evidenced by Kado who discloses a method of drying an electrode body in a battery by heating the battery prior to pouring electrolyte (Kado paragraph 0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have used heat evaporation drying in the battery of Clough modified by Bant as evidenced by Kado. According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clough et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,068,160) in view of Eisenhut et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,401,279) and Bant (U.S. PG Publication 4,200,683; cited in IDS dated 03/22/2024) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nulman (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0301743)
The discussion of Clough, Eisenhut and Bant as applied to claim 1 and 10 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 35 Clough is silent about a method of employing a drying a gas to dry a battery assembly. Nulman discloses a method of drying and preparing the interior of an energy storage cell prior to filling with an electrolyte include introducing a dry air or gas into the interior volume of the battery (Nulman paragraph 0018, 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Clough by the teaching of Nulman and to have used dry gas for drying a battery assembly as taught by Nulman (Nulman paragraph 0018, 0021). Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Claim 73, 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clough et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,068,160) in view of Eisenhut et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,401,279) and Bant (U.S. PG Publication 4,200,683; cited in IDS dated 03/22/2024) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0083267)
The discussion of Clough, Eisenhut and Bant as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 73 and 76 Clough is silent about a method wherein a fluid flow through the battery to remove lead species and electrolyte from the battery. Sasaki discloses in a lead-acid battery sulfonic acid is used to trap lead ion (Sasaki paragraph 0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used sulfonic acid to sequester lead ions, equivalent to the lead removal, as taught by Sasaki (Sasaki paragraph 0002) or remove electrolyte that incudes lead ions therein. Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
