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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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(s) 1 & 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaaki (JP2015138753A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on December 15th, 2021) in view of Idikurt (DE102017210744, see US National Stage Entry, US20200136109, for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Masaaki discloses a power supply device (battery module, [009]) comprising:
A battery block including a plurality of battery cells and separators (secondary batteries-100, [0016], spacer-230 acts as separator, [0019]), the plurality of battery cells being stacked in a thickness direction with separators each interposed between a corresponding adjacent pair of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 9);
A pair of end plates disposed on opposing end faces of the battery block (cell holders-210 act as end plates, Fig. 1, [0018]), and
A binding bar couples to the pair of end plates to fix the battery block in a compressed state via the end plates (pair of side plates are fastened to end cell holders, [0017] act as binding bar),
Wherein each of the battery cells includes a battery case (battery container-1 is composed of battery can-10, [0028]), and a sealing plate (lid-20 acts as sealing plate, [0028]), the battery case has a closed bottom (battery can-10 has a bottom, Fig. 6 or 7, [0028]),
The sealing plate is airtightly fixed to an opening edge of the battery case (hermetic seal, [0028]), and
Wherein each of the separators includes a stack plane stacked on a plane of the battery case of each of the corresponding pair of the plurality of battery cells, the stack plane being in contact with the plane of the battery cell, the plane of the battery case facing the stack plane (the examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, plane of the battery case” can mean any 2 dimensional plane of the battery case, and stack plane is a descriptive term for the separator structure not an additional structure, therefore because the spacers are stacked on the side of the battery case, Fig. 8, is it the examiner’s position that Masaaki discloses this limitation)
The stack plane includes elasticity to deform to absorb expansion of the battery cells caused by an increase in internal pressure (spacers are made from elastic material, [0048]),
A Young’s modulus of an outer peripheral edge part and an upper edge part of the stack plane is different from a Young’s modulus of an internal region located inside the outer peripheral edge part of the stack plane, and the Young’s modulus an the upper edge part is higher than the Young’s modulus of the internal region, (elastic modules in central region is lower than in end regions, [0010]).
Masaaki does not directly disclose wherein the upper edge part of the separator is a most outer peripheral edge along the sealing plate of the battery cell and directly contacts the plane of the battery case.
Idikurt discloses a battery cell stack that includes spacers in between adjacent battery cells (spacer element-16, cell pack-4, battery housing sides-10a/10b, [0034], Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Idikurt further discloses wherein the spacer element-16 is a flat structure that directly contacts the plane of the battery case, including an outer peripheral edge of the battery housing (Fig. 1). Idikurt teaches that this structure provides a design that can compensate for age related expansions or changes in volume of the battery cells ([0026]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Masaaki with the teachings of Idikurt to have wherein the upper edge part of the separator is a most outer peripheral edge along the sealing plate of the battery cell and directly contacts the plane of the battery case. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved ability to compensate for age related expansions or changes in volume of the battery cells.
Regarding Claim 12, Masaaki in view of Idikurt discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Masaaki teaches that this battery module can be used for an electric vehicle including EVs which use electric motors ([002]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Masaaki to have an electric vehicle including the power supply device of claim 1, where the electric vehicle comprises: the power supply device, a motor for travelling that received electric power from the power supply device; a vehicle body that incorporates the power supply device and the motor; and a wheel that is driven by the motor to cause the vehicle body to travel.
Regarding Claim 13, Massaki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Masaaki further teaches that secondary batteries are often used where they are repeatedly charged and discharged at a large current ([004]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Masaaki to have wherein a power supply controller configured to control charging and discharging of the power supply device, wherein the power supply controller enables charging of the secondary battery cells with electric power supplied from an outside and causes the secondary battery cells to charge.
Claim(s) 2-7 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaaki (JP2015138753A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on December 15th, 2021) in view of Idikurt (DE102017210744, see US National Stage Entry, US20200136109, for citations) further in view of Oikawa (US20190161909) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on December 15th, 2021).
Regarding Claim 2, Masaaki discloses the limitations as set forth above. Masaaki discloses wherein the spacers acting as separators can be made from elastic resin such as silicon resin ([0049]), but does not directly disclose wherein the separators include a hybrid material of an inorganic powder and a fibrous reinforcing material.
Oikawa discloses a thermal insulation sheet that is made from a hybrid material of an inorganic powder and a fibrous material (insulation sheet formed of aerogel acting as inorganic powder [0013], and nonwoven fabric which can be a fiber [0013], [0056]). Oikawa teaches that this insultation sheet provides enhanced compressive strength and thermal insulation ([0147]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Masaaki with the teachings of Oikawa to have wherein the separators include a hybrid material of an inorganic powder and a fibrous reinforcing material. This modification would yield the expected result of improved compressive strength and thermal insulation.
Regarding Claim 3, Masaaki in view of Idikurt further in view of Oikawa discloses the limitations as set forth above..
Oikawa further discloses wherein the aerogel can be a silica aerogel ([0030-0032]).
Regarding Claim 4, Massaki in view of Oikawa discloses the limitations as set forth above. Massaki in view of Oikawa discloses the separator has the hybrid material (see claim 2 rejection above). Oikawa further discloses wherein the insulating sheet is one sheet (Fig. 11 & 12).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Masaaki with the teachings of Oikawa to have wherein each of the separators include a hybrid material and is one sheet. This modification would yield the expected result of improved compressive strength and thermal insulation.
Regarding Claim 5, Masaaki in view of Idikurt further in view of Oikawa discloses the limitations as set forth above.. Masaaki further discloses wherein the elastic modules in the central region of the spacer is lower than in end regions of the space ([0010]).
Oikawa teaches that adjusting the silica aerogel content with the nonwoven fabric can adjust the bulk density of the thermal sheet, where higher packing density of silica aerogel leads to higer packing density ([0032-0033], [0047]).
The examiner notes that because Masaaki discloses adjusting the elastic modulus of the spacer to have a higher elastic modulus on the outer edge part of the spacer verus the internal region of the spacer, and because Oikawa teaches adjusting the packing density of the silica aerogel, that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Masaaki with the teachings of Oikawa to have wherein the hybrid material includes a packing density of a silica aerogel of the upper edge part higher than a packing density of a silica aerogel of the internal region.
Regarding Claim 6, Masaaki discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Masaaki discloses wherein the separators include a high rigidity sheet and a low rigidity sheet including a Young’s modulus smaller than a Young’s modulus of the high rigidity sheet (Masaaki discloses wherine the elastic modulus of the abutment portion 232a which acts as the low rigidity sheet is lower than the elastic modulus of the abutment portion 232b which acts as the high rigidity sheet, [0050]),
Wherein the high rigidity sheet is disposed on the upper edge part (abutment portion 232b is provided on end regions, [0050]), and wherein the low rigidity sheet is disposed in the internal region (abutment portion 232a is provided in central region, [0050]).
Masaaki discloses wherein the spacers acting as separators can be made from elastic resin such as silicon resin ([0049]), but does not directly disclose wherein the high rigidity sheet and the low rigidity sheet include a hybrid material of a silica aerogel and a fibrous reinforcing material.
Oikawa discloses a thermal insulation sheet that is made from a hybrid material of an inorganic powder and a fibrous material (insulation sheet formed of aerogel acting as inorganic powder [0013], and nonwoven fabric which can be a fiber [0013], [0056]). Oikawa teaches that this insultation sheet provides enhanced compressive strength and thermal insulation ([0147]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Masaaki with the teachings of Oikawa to have wherein the high rigidity sheet and the low rigidity sheet include a hybrid material of a silica aerogel and a fibrous reinforcing material. This modification would yield the expected result of improved compressive strength and thermal insulation.
Regarding Claim 7, Masaaki in view of Idikurt further in view of Oikawa discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Masaaki discloses wherein the elastic modules in the central region of the spacer is lower than in end regions of the space ([0010]), but does not directly disclose wherein the high rigidity sheet include a packing density of the silica aerogel higher than a packing density of the silica aerogel of the low rigidity sheet.
Oikawa teaches that adjusting the silica aerogel content with the nonwoven fabric can adjust the bulk density of the thermal sheet, where higher packing density of silica aerogel leads to higher packing density ([0032-0033], [0047]).
The examiner notes that because Masaaki discloses adjusting the elastic modulus of the spacer to have a higher elastic modulus on the outer edge part of the spacer versus the internal region of the spacer, and because Oikawa teaches adjusting the packing density of the silica aerogel, that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Masaaki with the teachings of Oikawa to have wherein the high rigidity sheet include a packing density of the silica aerogel higher than a packing density of the silica aerogel of the low rigidity sheet.
Regarding Claim 11, Masaaki in view of Idikurt further in view of Oikawa discloses the limitations as set forth above..
Masaaki does not disclose the thickness of each separator.
Oikawa disclosews wherein the preferred range of the thermal sheet is preferably 0.03 mm to 3.0 mm ([0045]), which substantially overlaps the instant claim range of 0.5 mm to 3 mm. Zhang teaches that this range allows for a good thermal insulating effect without complicated the installation of the thermal insulating sheet in a device ([0045]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Masaaki with the teaching of Oikawa to have wherein each separator includes a thickness between 0.5 mm and 3 mm. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved insulating effect.
Regarding Claim 14, Masaaki in view of Idikurt discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Masaaki does not directly disclose wherein the upper edge part of the separator is made of material different from material of the internal region of the separator.
Masaaki discloses wherein the separators include a high rigidity sheet and a low rigidity sheet (Masaaki discloses wherein the elastic modulus of the abutment portion 232a which acts as the low rigidity sheet is lower than the elastic modulus of the abutment portion 232b which acts as the high rigidity sheet, [0050]),
Wherein the high rigidity sheet is disposed on the upper edge part (abutment portion 232b is provided on end regions, [0050]), and wherein the low rigidity sheet is disposed in the internal region (abutment portion 232a is provided in central region, [0050]).
Masaaki further discloses wherein the spacers acting as separators can be made from elastic resin such as silicon resin ([0049]), but does not directly disclose wherein the upper edge part of the separator is made of material different from material of the internal region of the separator.
Oikawa discloses a thermal insulation sheet that is made from a hybrid material of an inorganic powder and a fibrous material (insulation sheet formed of aerogel acting as inorganic powder [0013], and nonwoven fabric which can be a fiber [0013], [0056]). Oikawa teaches that this insultation sheet provides enhanced compressive strength and thermal insulation ([0147]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Masaaki with the teachings of Oikawa to have wherein the upper edge part of the separator is made of material different from material of the internal region of the separator. This modification would yield the expected result of improved compressive strength and thermal insulation.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaaki (JP2015138753A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on December 15th, 2021) in view of Idikurt (DE102017210744, see US National Stage Entry, US20200136109, for citations) further in view of Oikawa (US20190161909) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on December 15th, 2021) further in view of Zhang (CN205657108U).
Regarding Claim 8-10, Masaaki in view of Idikurt further in view of Oikawa discloses the limitations as set forth above. Modified Masaaki discloses wherein the low rigidity sheet includes a laminated sheet of the hybrid material (see claim 6 above), but is silent to the use of an elastic sheet formed of synthetic rubber.
Zhang discloses a separator sheet that is placed in-between adjacent battery cells that are stacked ([008]) and is formed of a thermally insulating material and a high heat capacity/phase change material ([008]). Zhang further discloses wherein the separator can contain a silicon rubber material ([0013]). Zhang teaches that this structure provides improved safety of the battery ([006]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Modified Masaaki with the teachings of Zhang to have wherein an elastic sheet formed of synthetic rubber is laminated onto the low rigidity sheet.
7. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaaki (JP2015138753A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on December 15th, 2021) in view of Idikurt (DE102017210744, see US National Stage Entry, US20200136109, for citations) further in view of Yoshioka (US20130095359).
Regarding Claim 15, Masaaki in view of Idikurt discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Masaaki does not directly disclose wherein the separator comprises a through hole.
Yoshioka discloses a spacer element placed between battery cells ([006]). Yoshioka further discloses wherein the spacer includes an insulating wall ([007]). Yoshioka further discloses wherein the insulating wall comprises engaging holes ([0051]). Yoshioka teaches that this structure provides improved mounting of the spacer ([008]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Masaaki in view of Yoshioka to have wherein the separator comprises a through hole. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved mounting of the spacer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1st 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that combination of Masaaki and Idikurt are technically incompatible and fail to disclose or suggest the presently claim invention. Applicant argues that Idikurt does not disclose any particular geometry such as being flat or mention rigidity distribution or any Young’s Modulus values.
Masaaki discloses a battery block including a plurality of battery cells and separators (secondary batteries-100, [0016], spacer-230 acts as separator, [0019]), the plurality of battery cells being stacked in a thickness direction with separators each interposed between a corresponding adjacent pair of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 9);
Wherein each of the battery cells includes a battery case (battery container-1 is composed of battery can-10, [0028]), and a sealing plate (lid-20 acts as sealing plate, [0028]), the battery case has a closed bottom (battery can-10 has a bottom, Fig. 6 or 7, [0028]),
The sealing plate is airtightly fixed to an opening edge of the battery case (hermetic seal, [0028]), and
Wherein each of the separators includes a stack plane stacked on a plane of the battery case of each of the corresponding pair of the plurality of battery cells, the stack plane being in contact with the plane of the battery cell, the plane of the battery case facing the stack plane (the examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, plane of the battery case” can mean any 2 dimensional plane of the battery case, and stack plane is a descriptive term for the separator structure not an additional structure, therefore because the spacers are stacked on the side of the battery case, Fig. 8, is it the examiner’s position that Masaaki discloses this limitation)
The stack plane includes elasticity to deform to absorb expansion of the battery cells caused by an increase in internal pressure (spacers are made from elastic material, [0048]),
A Young’s modulus of an outer peripheral edge part and an upper edge part of the stack plane is different from a Young’s modulus of an internal region located inside the outer peripheral edge part of the stack plane, and the Young’s modulus the upper edge part is higher than the Young’s modulus of the internal region, (elastic modules in central region is lower than in end regions, [0010]).
Masaaki does not directly disclose wherein the upper edge part of the separator is a most outer peripheral edge along the sealing plate of the battery cell and directly contacts the plane of the battery case.
Idikurt discloses a battery cell stack that includes spacers in between adjacent battery cells (spacer element-16, cell pack-4, battery housing sides-10a/10b, [0034], Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Idikurt further discloses wherein the spacer element-16 is a flat structure that directly contacts the plane of the battery case, including an outer peripheral edge of the battery housing (Fig. 1). Idikurt teaches that this structure provides a design that can compensate for age related expansions or changes in volume of the battery cells ([0026]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Masaaki with the teachings of Idikurt to have wherein the upper edge part of the separator is a most outer peripheral edge along the sealing plate of the battery cell and directly contacts the plane of the battery case. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved ability to compensate for age related expansions or changes in volume of the battery cells.
The examiner notes that Idikurt is brought in to teach that the upper edge of the separator is a most outer peripheral edge along the sealing plate of the battery cell and directly contacts the plane of the battery. Masaaki discloses the difference in Young’s modulus of the outer peripheral edge part and upper edge part of the stack plane.
The examiner further notes that the position of Masaaki’s spacer is present in between the battery cells in the same manner as Idikurt’s separator elements. Furthermore, the benefit of compensate for age related expansions or changes in volume of the battery cells is a benefit that can be enjoyed by Masaaki without altering the critical design functions of Masaaki.
Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights