DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. Applicant's responses filed on 12/23/2025 and 4/3/2026 have been entered. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election of Species A-1 and Species B-2 on 4/3/2026 on 4/3/2026 which is treated as an election without traverse given no arguments are presented traversing the restriction requirement. Applicant identifies claims 1, 5-7, and 11-16 as readable on the elected species; however, the election to Species B-2 (Figs. 6E-6F – the leads are extended from longitudinal sides of the electrode assembly, from different sides, P44 of the PGPUB) does not read on any of the claimed lead configurations including claim 11. Accordingly, the elected species reads on claims 1, 5-7, and 12-16 (i.e., claim 11 is also withdrawn).
It is noted that the claims as filed on 4/3/2026 do not have proper claim identifiers and are missing “withdrawn” for each of claims 10, 11, 18-20.
Although withdrawn, it is noted that for claims 18 and 19, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph and 112(b)/second paragraph against these claims were not addressed:
Claims 18 and 19 each recite “a bending direction of the electrochemical systems” which was newly added to the claims on 12/6/2024. The language violates the written description and appears counter to the disclosure which aims to not bend the electrochemical systems (see P4). Accordingly, clarifying language with respect what the bending direction is in reference to is required. It would further appear that the claimed “stack axis” as defined in claim 1 is (perhaps?) the same as the bending direction.
Claims 18 and 19 each recite “a bending direction of the electrochemical systems” which was newly added to the claims on 12/6/2024. The language violates the written description and appears counter to the disclosure which aims to not bend the electrochemical systems (see P4 of the PGPUB). Accordingly, clarifying language with respect what the bending direction is in reference to is required to render the claims definitive. It would further appear that the claimed “stack axis” as defined in claim 1 would (maybe?) be one in the same as “a bending direction” [of the appropriate entity/entities]. Duplicative claim terminology for the same entity without appropriate antecedent basis renders these claims as indefinite; appropriate clarification is requested.
Species that include all the limitations of an allowable claim will be reconsidered for rejoinder at the time of finding an allowable, elected claim, wherein claims 18 and 19 would be subjected to these same rejections at the time of claim 1 being found allowable. Accordingly, to avoid delay at such a time, claims 18 and 19 should be corrected, despite being in a withdrawn status.
Specification & Drawings
3. The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the correction filed 12/23/2025 which is accepted by the Examiner and provides proper antecedent basis for the previously newly added claim language. The drawing filed 12/23/2025 is accepted as properly annotating the newly utilized claim terminology.
Claim Objections
4. The objections to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the appropriate correction filed.
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: formatting and punctuation.
The components of each of the electrochemical systems as defined should be further indented to the right for clarity.
Claim 1, final two paragraphs: all of the commas after “wherein along the axis” (in each instance) are unnecessary and improper and should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The rejection of claims 3, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 19 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 are withdrawn in view of either appropriate corrections or cancellation of the claim (claims 3, 10, 11, and 17) or the claims being in a withdrawn status (claims 18 and 19).
The rejection of claim 1, and thus those dependent claims 2-7, 10-19; claim 3; claim 17; and claims 10, 11, 18, and 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 are withdrawn in view of either appropriate corrections or cancellation of the claim (claims 1, 3, 10, 11, and 17) or the claims being in a withdrawn status (claims 18 and 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ § 103
7. The rejection of claims 1, 12-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasushi et al. (JP 2012-243395) (machine translation previously provided), or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yasushi et al. (JP 2012-243395) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made.
Regarding claim 1, Yasushi teaches an electrode assembly (Fig. 3; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
a strip-shaped insulator (“a sole glue frame”) (formed from thermal fusion films 20 during the method of making) (P8), wherein it is noted that while the method of making begins with two thermal fusion films 20, they are melted and the electrochemical systems 10, as well as one another (intrinsically) (P17), such that the final product is one in which there is a sole frame (i.e., melted/adhered 20 + 20 combine into the final, sole frame; the feature best illustrated in Fig. 1(b) showing current collector 1 is not as wide as the beginning thermal fusion films 20 that bond and seal the current collector 1 therein, with these films 20 subjected to melting/adhering to one another and the electrochemical systems such that the final construct is a sole frame:
PNG
media_image1.png
219
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yasushi further teaches:
a first belt current collector 1 and a second belt current collector 3 opposed to the first belt current collector 1 (P15; Figs. 1-3);
a plurality of electrochemical systems 10 disposed between the first belt current collector 1 and the second belt current collector 3 (P15; Figs. 1-3), each of the electrochemical systems 10 comprising:
a first active material layer 11, being in contact with the first belt current collector 1;
a second active material layer 13, being in contact with the second belt current collector 3; and
a separator 12, disposed between the first active material layer 11 and the second active material layer 13 (Figs. 1-6; entire disclosure relied upon),
the sole glue frame (melted/adhered 20 + 20) adhering to and being sandwiched between the first belt current collector 1 and the second belt current collector 3 and surrounding the electrochemical systems 10 to make each of the electrochemical systems be an independent module (P9, 15-17, 24, 28; Figs. 1-3), wherein the sole glue frame 20 includes a plurality of through openings 21, each of the through openings 21 connecting an upper surface and a lower surface of the sole glue frame 20, and which each of the electrochemical systems 10 are accommodated in one of the through openings 21 (Figs. 1-3; entire disclosure relied upon), the upper surface of the sole glue frame 20 is adhered to the first belt current collector 1, and the lower surface of the sole glue frame is adhered to the second belt current collector 3 (P17), and wherein the electrochemical systems 10 are completely sealed by the glue frame 20, the first belt current collector 1, and the second belt current collector 3 (P9, 17, 24, 28) in order to allow
a plurality of bending portions formed by bending portions of the sole glue frame (melted/adhered 20 + 20) located between the electrochemical systems together with the first belt current collector 1 and the second belt current collector 3 adhered by the bending portions of the glue frame 20 to make the electrochemical systems be stacked in a back to front orientation (Figs. 1, 3)1, wherein the electrochemical systems are vertically stacked in a zigzag shape along a stack axis to form a parallel connection (Fig. 1, 3; P18);
wherein along the stack axis, a portion of the first belt current collector 1 that contacts with one of the electrochemical systems 10 is capable of contacting directly with a portion of the first belt current collector 1 that contacts with an adjacent one of the electrochemical systems 10 (annotated below; additional explanation/comments below); and
wherein along the stack axis, a portion of the second belt current collector 3 is capable of contacting directly with a portion of the second belt current collector that contacts with another adjacent one of the electrochemical systems 10 (annotated below; additional explanation/comments below).
Applicant removed the language of “adjacent and overlapping portions of the [respective] current collector” presented on 5/27/2025 and changed this to simply “a portion” in all instances. The claimed portions of each current collector (respectively) intrinsically all [electrically] contact all electrochemical systems because of the shared current collector construct that creates a parallel connection. Accordingly, the “portions” claimed could be those of each respective current collector that are directly, physically adjacent to one another such that the portions contact directly (either physically or electrically) with one another. Thus, the “capability” features are met for this reason and the broadening amendments provided to the language.
For compact prosecution purposes, even if the “adjacent and overlapping portions” feature was reinstated, Figs. 1-3 of Yasuhisa are reproduced below with Fig. 1 being two sides views of the same, pre-fusion electrode assembly (P17), and Fig. 3 including the annotated portions of the respective portions as claimed:
PNG
media_image2.png
379
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
338
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
697
969
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the capability of the portions of the first belt current collector 1, and the capability of the portions of the second belt current collector 3 is considered met given, consistent with Applicant’s remarks filed 5/27/2025, the structure necessary for this capability to be achieved [relative to the adjacent/overlapping portions] is that there are no intervening elements between the respective adjacent and overlapping portions of the respective collector, and if the electrode assembly or a portion thereof were subjected to additional force, pressure, and/or compression, the adjacent and overlapping portions are capable of contacting directly. Accordingly, the structure necessary to achieve the capability claimed appears to be fully met by Yasushi given if additional compression or force was applied to at least part or all of the electrode assembly and it was further “squeezed together” in certain areas, direct contact between the annotated portions above is capable of occurring. Functional limitations or “capabilities” of components in a product claim are evaluated for the implicit and/or explicit structure they convey to the product.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, by default, one of the claims is anticipated (i.e., there are inherently either an even number or odd number of the electrochemical systems 10), and the other claim is considered an obvious design choice based on the desired electrical output of the electrode assembly, the number of systems dictating the voltage and current output of the system, the selection thereof involving routine skill of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Yasushi teaches a battery device composed of the electrode assembly of claim 1 and an exterior body (“housing”) packaging the electrode assembly (P26, 40).
Regarding claim 16, Yasushi teaches a plurality of exterior bodies for packaging the laminate electrode assembly are provided (P40). Accordingly, Yasushi teaches a plurality of exterior body packaging members (i.e., “an upper case and a lower case”) for the housing (P40). Note that “upper” and “lower” are relative terms such that however the plurality of exterior bodies are shaped or applied, they read on the language presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The rejection of claims 1, 5, 12-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments made.
Regarding claim 1, Nishino teaches an electrode assembly (Figs. 8A-9D), comprising:
an insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) made from an insulating adhesive, wherein Nishino utilizes a plurality of insulating, adhesive sections 9 (or 9a, 9b) versus a sole insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b); however, the court has held that that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”:
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a
fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which
differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means,
whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured
together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons,
“that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior
art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a one piece construction (“a sole2 glue frame”) for the adhesive, insulating sections (“glue frame”) (9 or 9a, 9b) as a matter of obvious engineering choice based on the legal precedent cited above by way of providing a singular adhesive layer (9 or 9a, 9b) in place of the plurality of adhesive sections 9 (or 9a, 9b).
Nishino further teaches:
a first belt current collector 4 and a second belt current collector 5 opposed to the first belt current collector 4;
a plurality of electrochemical systems 10 disposed between the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5, each of the electrochemical systems 10 comprises:
a first active material layer 1 in contact with the first belt current collector 4;
a second active material layer 2 in contact with the second belt current collector 5; and
a separator 2 disposed between the first active material layer 1 and the second active material layer 4 (P41-64, 77-80; Figs. 8A-9D).
Nishino teaches the insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) (“sole glue frame”) adhering to and being sandwiched between the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 and (partially) surrounding the electrochemical systems 10 (i.e., at least on left and right sides) to make each of the electrochemical systems 10 be an independent module (note that the electrolyte layer is a solid electrolyte layer – (P53-57) such that there is no sharing of any electrochemical component among the electrochemical systems 10), wherein the electrochemical systems are sealed by the glue frame 9, the first belt current collector 4, and the second belt current collector 5 (Figs. 8A-B, 9A-9D; at least one their left, right, upper, and lower sides- further discussion below) in order to allow charge transfer between two adjacent electrochemical systems without electrochemical reaction occurring between two adjacent electrochemical systems (P77; note that the electrolyte layer is a solid electrolyte layer – (P53-57) such that there is no sharing of any electrochemical component among the electrochemical systems 10); and
a plurality of bending portions (see Fig. 9D), formed by bending portions of the glue frame 9 located between the electrochemical systems 10 together with the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 adhered by the bending portions of the glue frame 9 to make the electrochemical systems be stacked in a back to front orientation (Figs. 8A-9D; P77-80; not limited to entire disclosure); wherein the electrochemical systems 10 are vertically stacked in a zigzag shape along the stack axis to form a parallel connection (entire disclosure relied upon).
It is noted that the claim is a product-by-process claim (see MPEP § 2113).
Nishino does not explicitly teach that the insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) made from an insulating adhesive (“glue frame”) (P77) [completely] surrounds the electrochemical systems 10 such that the electrochemical systems are completely sealed by the glue frame, the first belt current collector 4, and the second belt collector 5. Nishino teaches the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) is between the adjacent power generating elements to prevent adjacent power generating elements 10 from short-circuiting (P77) and presents cross-sections of the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) with the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) as shown in the cross section of Fig. 8-9D showing the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) on left and right sides of the adjacent electrochemical systems 10. Accordingly, Nishino does not teach complete sealing by the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) of the electrochemical systems (i.e., also on top and bottom sides not shown in the figures in addition to left and right sides; note that the current collectors 4, 5 are provided on upper and lower surfaces of the systems 10) as it can only be said based on the disclosure and drawings that the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) is presented on left and right edges of the electrochemical systems 10; however, Nishino teaches that the function of the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) is to prevent short-circuiting between adjacent electrochemical systems (P77).
Therefore, it would have been entirely obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) such that it completely surrounds the electrochemical systems 10 (i.e., is also present on top and bottom sides) to prevent short-circuiting of the components via all exposed sides including top and bottom sides (i.e., what would be electrical arcing) which would be just as relevant a concern at the top and bottom surfaces of the adjacent the electrochemical systems 10 as it would be along adjacent sides thereof, with the goal of Nishino to prevent short-circuiting between the adjacent electrochemical systems 10 by insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) (P77).
It is noted that the proposed modifications result in:
the one-piece, provided-on-all sides of the electrochemical systems insulating layer (9 or 9a, 9b) to comprise a plurality of through-openings (i.e., in order to allow for the placement of the electrochemical systems 10 as shown in Figs. 8A-9D), each of the through openings connecting an upper surface and a lower surface of the sole glue frame 9 (or 9a, 9b), and wherein each of the electrochemical systems 10 is accommodated in one of the through-openings, the upper surface of the insulating layer (9 or 9a, 9b) (“sole glue frame’) is adhered to the first belt current collector 4, and the lower surface of the sole glue frame is adhered to the second belt current collector 5.
Furthermore regarding the claim, Nishino teaches:
wherein along the stack axis, a portion of the first belt current collector 4 that contacts with one of the electrochemical systems is capable of contacting directly with a portion of the first belt current collector that contacts with an adjacent one of the electrical systems; and
wherein along the stack axis, a portion of the second belt current collector 5 that contacts with one of the electrochemical systems is capable of contacting directly with a portion of the second belt current collector that contacts with another adjacent one of the electrochemical systems.
Applicant removed the language of “adjacent and overlapping portions of the [respective] current collector” presented on 5/27/2025 and changed this to simply “a portion” in all instances. The claimed portions intrinsically all [electrically] contact all electrochemical systems because of the shared current collector construct that creates a parallel connection. Accordingly, the “portions” claimed could be those of each respective current collector that are directly, physically adjacent to one another such that the portions contact directly (either physically or electrically) with one another. Thus, the “capability” features are met for this reason.
Regarding claim 5, Nishino teaches the electrode assembly further comprising an electrolyte system impregnated in the first active material layer 4 and the second active material layer 5, wherein the electrolyte system is a solid electrolyte (P46, 51, 53-57).
Regarding claim 12, Nishino teaches wherein an amount of the electrochemical systems is odd (Figs.8A-9D illustrate three electrochemical systems 10), and further teaches that that the number of monopolar battery elements is not limited but may be within a range of 2 to 60, and preferably 2 to 20 (P63), wherein the odd-numbered values (e.g., 3, 5, 7, etc.) within the taught range are such that the amount of the electrochemical systems 10 is odd.
Regarding claim 13, Nishino teaches wherein an amount of the electrochemical systems 10 is even (P63 teaches that the number of monopolar battery elements is not limited but may be within a range of 2 to 60, and preferably 2 to 20). The even-numbered values (e.g., 2, 4, 6, etc.) within the taught range are such that the amount of the electrochemical systems 10 is even.
Regarding claim 14, Nishino teaches a “battery device” composed of the electrode assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 9B as outlined above) and a housing (Figs. 10A-10B) packaging the electrode assembly of Fig. 9B (P80-81; Figs. 10A-10B).
Regarding claim 16, Nishino teaches the housing (Figs. 10A-10B) includes an upper case and a lower case (illustrated – see Figs. 10A-10B).
9. The rejection of claims 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) as applied to at least claims 1, and 5 above, and further in view of El Baradai et al. (US 2020/0358124) is maintained. It is noted the rejections of 10-11 and 18-19 under this heading are withdrawn given the claims are drawn to non-elected species and in a withdrawn status.
Regarding claim 6, Nishino teaches wherein the glue frame 9 seals all electrochemical systems 10 such that the electrolyte system (taught electrolyte system is a solid electrolyte system - (P46, 51, 53-57) is only held within the respective electrochemical systems 10.
The claim recites that the electrolyte system only circulates within respective electrochemical systems, which would require that the electrolyte system is a liquid electrolyte (one of the options of claim 5 from which claim 6 depends), wherein the selection/substitution thereof is considered prima facie obvious given El Baradai teaches analogous art of a foldable, flexible electrode assembly and teaches that between the electrodes is either a solid electrolyte or a separator impregnated with liquid electrolyte (P5, 72) such that the selection/substitution thereof is considered routine in the art, and would provide the battery with a functionally equivalent, known option to electrically separate the electrodes while allowing ion transfer.
10. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2020/0052000) is maintained.
Regarding claim 7, Nishino teaches wherein the insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) (“glue frame”) is made from an insulating adhesive that may be a silicone adhesive (P77), wherein the insulating layer 9 (“glue frame”) may be two insulating layers (9a, 9b) that stick closely together (P77-78) (i.e., what would be two silicone adhesive layers), with insulating layer 9a (“one of the silicone layers”) being adhered to the first belt current collector 4, and insulating layer 9b (“another one of the silicone layers”) adhered to the second belt current collector 5.
Nishino fails to explicitly teach the construct in which the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) (“glue frame”) comprises a silicone layer and two modified silicone layers disposed on two sides of the silicone layer respectively, wherein one of the two modified silicone layers is adhered to the first belt current collector and another one of the two modified silicone layers is adhered to the second belt current collector.
Such a sealing, adhesive construct is a known construct in the field of sealing electrochemical systems as taught by Yang, Yang teaching a sealing construct comprising a silicone layer and two modified silicone layers on both sides of said silicon layer that improves the sealing effect, increases cohesion at the interfaces thereof, and blocks permeation of moisture (P39; Fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the adhesive insulating construct of Nishino (9/ 9a, 9b) that of the sealing construct of Yang in which there is a silicone layer and two modified silicone layers on both sides of said silicon layer in order to provide the predictable, advantageous result of improving the sealing effect, increasing cohesion at the interface, and blocking permeation of moisture (P39; Fig. 4B).
11. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) as applied to at least claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Mehta et al. (US 2010/0075221) is maintained.
Regarding claim 15, Nishino fails to teach wherein a fire retardant or a coolant is filled between the electrode assembly and the housing packaging (Figs. 10A-10B) the electrode assembly.
In the same field of endeavor, Mehta teaches analogous art of an electrode assembly and cell casing 101 (“housing”), wherein there is a layer of intumescent material 1101 interposed between the inside wall of cell casing 101 and the exterior surface of the electrode assembly (Fig. 11; P44), wherein the intumescent material 1101is selected for optimal fire retardant properties (P44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the layer of intumescent material 1101 having fire retardant properties (i.e., “a fire retardant”) filled between the electrode assembly and the housing (Figs. 10A-10B) of Nishino given the construct and technique are taught by Mehta, thereby providing the predictable result of preventing fire.
12. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasushi et al. (JP 2012-243395) as applied to at least claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Mehta et al. (US 2010/0075221) is maintained.
Regarding claim 15, Yasushi fails to disclose wherein a fire retardant or a coolant is filled between the electrode assembly and the exterior body (“housing”) packaging the electrode assembly (P26).
In the same field of endeavor, Mehta teaches analogous art of an electrode assembly and cell casing 101 (“housing”), wherein there is a layer of intumescent material 1101 interposed between the inside wall of cell casing 101 and the exterior surface of the electrode assembly (Fig. 11; P44), wherein the intumescent material 1101is selected for optimal fire retardant properties (P44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the layer of intumescent material 1101 having fire retardant properties (i.e., “a fire retardant”) filled between the electrode assembly and the exterior body (“housing”) of Yasushi given the construct and technique are taught by Mehta, thereby providing the predictable result of preventing fire.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 with respect to the maintained prior art rejections have been fully considered. The updated rejections of record reflect the claim amendments made, wherein Applicant’s arguments are respectfully addressed below.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
521
671
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
319
640
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In response: Regarding the single/sole glue frame argument:
Yasushi teaches an electrode assembly (Fig. 3; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
a strip-shaped insulator (“a sole glue frame”) (formed from thermal fusion films 20 during the method of making) (P8), wherein it is noted that while the method of making begins with two thermal fusion films 20, they are melted and the electrochemical systems 10, as well as one another (intrinsically) (P17), such that the final product is one in which there is a sole frame (i.e., melted/adhered 20 + 20 combine into the final, sole frame; the feature best illustrated in Fig. 1(b) showing current collector 1 is not as wide as the beginning thermal fusion films 20 that bond and seal the current collector 1 therein, with these films 20 subjected to melting/adhering to one another and the electrochemical systems such that the final construct is a sole frame:
PNG
media_image1.png
219
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the “capability” features argued, the amended claim limitations presented are quoted below (from the claim set filed 4/3/2026):
PNG
media_image7.png
287
578
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See original language added as compared to the language presently amended:
PNG
media_image8.png
158
556
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Applicant removed the language of “adjacent and overlapping portions of the [respective] current collector” presented on 5/27/2025 and changed this to simply “a portion” in all instances. The claimed portions intrinsically all [electrically] contact all electrochemical systems because of the shared current collector construct that creates a parallel connection. Accordingly, the “portions” claimed could be those of each respective current collector that are directly, physically adjacent to one another at any location such that the portions contact directly (either physically or electrically) with one another. Thus, the “capability” features are met for this reason.
For compact prosecution purposes, even if the “adjacent and overlapping portions” feature was reinstated, Figs. 1-3 of Yasuhisa are reproduced below with Fig. 1 being two sides views of the same, pre-fusion electrode assembly (P17), and Fig. 3 including the annotated portions of the respective portions as claimed:
PNG
media_image2.png
379
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
338
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
697
969
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the capability of the portions of the first belt current collector 1, and the capability of the portions of the second belt current collector 3 is considered met given, consistent with Applicant’s remarks filed 5/27/2025, the structure necessary for this capability to be achieved [relative to the adjacent/overlapping portions] is that there are no intervening elements between the respective adjacent and overlapping portions of the respective collector, and if the electrode assembly or a portion thereof were subjected to additional force, pressure, and/or compression, the adjacent and overlapping portions are capable of contacting directly. Accordingly, the structure necessary to achieve the capability claimed appears to be fully met by Yasushi given if additional compression or force was applied to at least part or all of the electrode assembly and it was further “squeezed together” in certain areas, direct contact between the annotated portions above is capable of occurring. Functional limitations or “capabilities” of components in a product claim are evaluated for the implicit and/or explicit structure they convey to the product.
Accordingly the above arguments are not persuasive and the rejection maintained.
Applicant argues, with emphasis added:
PNG
media_image9.png
513
656
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
136
631
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In response: First, Figs. 1 and 3 are pre-fusion/melting/adhesing of the sealing film, wherein the disclosure explicitly teaches that it is fused to seal each layer to seal the thin film battery element 10 (P17). Yasushi explicitly teaches that thermal fusion films are heated and fused to surround the outer periphery of the thin film battery unit 10 disposed in each opening portion (see P24: “the heat-sealing film 20… surrounds the outer periphery of the thin film battery element 10 of each layer. The thin film battery element single body 10 of each layer is sealed”). See also P28 describing same. Accordingly, after the heat-sealing step (not shown in the figures which are prior to fusion – see P17 which describes that Fig. 1 is before the heat-sealing film 20 is fused), the heat-sealing film 20 surrounds the outer periphery of the thin film element 10.
Second, it is noted that the claims do not require the entire electrochemical system to be “accommodated in one of the through openings” (see first underlined portion). Accordingly, the fact that at least a part of the electrochemical system is accommodated in one of the through openings reads on the limitation as presented. It is noted that even if “entirely accommodated” was added- please see the first point given Yasushi teaches this feature.
As to the second underlined portion, the Examiner is not clear where/how this conclusion was achieved by Applicant. MPEP 2121 notes that a reference is presumed operable and patents is assumed to work as described. If the above allegation is to be held persuasive, there must be clear and convincing evidence provided in the record by Applicant. Additionally, whether there is or is not cracking present in the prior art as alleged, it is not clear how this correlates to any claimed limitation to distinguish over Yasuhisa.
As to the final paragraph, this argument is not commensurate in scope with any claim limitation present such that it is rendered moot. Moreover, whether the separator of the prior art surrounds electrode layers or is just intervening with no surrounding feature is purely a design choice immediately known to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image11.png
287
660
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In response: Please see how the “capable of contacting” feature is being interpreted in the instant rejection. Regarding the prior rejection addressing the exterior body (no longer needed due to the deletions made within the claim), this does not address the actual rejection of record which did not content to delete the exterior body 7.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image12.png
363
637
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In response: Figure 5E of the instant application and Fig. 9D of Nishino are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image13.png
311
385
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
148
255
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The only distinction between the claims/format of the instant application electrode assembly and the shape/format of the electrode of Nishino is the format/shape of insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b). Nishino utilizes a plurality of insulating, adhesive sections 9 (or 9a, 9b) versus a sole insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b); however, the court has held that that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”:
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a
fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which
differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means,
whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured
together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons,
“that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior
art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
Therefore, it was concluded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a one piece construction (“a sole glue frame”) for the adhesive, insulating sections (“glue frame”) (9 or 9a, 9b) as a matter of obvious engineering choice based on the legal precedent cited above by way of providing a singular adhesive layer (9 or 9a, 9b) in place of the plurality of adhesive sections 9 (or 9a, 9b).
Additionally, Nishino does not teach complete sealing by the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) of the electrochemical systems (i.e., also on top and bottom sides not shown in the figures in addition to left and right sides; note that the current collectors 4, 5 are provided on upper and lower surfaces of the systems 10) as it can only be said based on the disclosure and drawings that the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) is presented on left and right edges of the electrochemical systems 10; however, Nishino teaches that the function of the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) is to prevent short-circuiting between adjacent electrochemical systems (P77).
Therefore, it was concluded that would have been entirely obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) such that it completely surrounds the electrochemical systems 10 (i.e., is also present on top and bottom sides) to prevent short-circuiting of the components via all exposed sides including top and bottom sides (i.e., what would be electrical arcing) which would be just as relevant a concern at the top and bottom surfaces of the adjacent the electrochemical systems 10 as it would be along adjacent sides thereof, with the goal of Nishino to prevent short-circuiting between the adjacent electrochemical systems 10 by insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) (P77).
Accordingly, based on legal precedent as well as a supporting rationale, the change in format/shape of the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) of Nishino is held as an exercise in design choice to obtain known, predictable results. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 It is noted that the language transforms the claim into a product-by-process claim (see MPEP § 2113). Product-by-process claims are evaluated for the implicit or explicit structural characteristics provided to the final product. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, wherein if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In the instance case, it appears all of the structural characteristics achieved by the product-by-process language are met by Yasushi such that the claim is considered anticipated by Yasushi as there appear to be no differences provided by the product-by-process limitation. Alternatively, any differences (none currently known to the Examiner) provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the electrode assembly of Yasushi. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
2 It is noted that while the insulating layer may be made up multiple layers (i.e., 9a + 9b), these layers are adhered to one another in the finally-formed product (P78) such that a sole entity made of multiple layers is achieved. This is consistent with how the instant “sole glue frame” is presented (see claim 7 which recites the sole glue frame is constituted of multiple layers).
Note also Fig. 8B in which insulating layer 9 of Nishino does not include multiple layers and is a single-layer entity.
Note also that the modified entity of the plurality of adhesive, insulating sections (9 or 9a, 9b) will henceforth be referred to in the singular as the sole glue frame based on this modification based on legal precedent.
Prosecution Insights