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, 3-5, 8-19, and 21 are currently pending
Claims 1, 13, and 16 are amended
Claim 20 has been cancelled
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 3 June 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 3 March 2026
The 103 rejections over He in view of Amine are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Ohashi in view of Wynn, further in view of Roumi and Amine has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (US 20100246095 A1), hereinafter Ohashi, in view of Wynn et al. (US 20190386264 A1), hereinafter Wynn, further in view of Roumi et al. (US 20180137991 A1), hereinafter Roumi.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Ohashi teaches an electrochemical apparatus, in this case an electric double layer capacitor [0008], comprising at least one partition 6 and 60 (Fig. 1), at least two electrode assemblies 4a and 4b located in a separate sealed cavity, as seen in Fig. 1, an electrolyte [0008], and outer packaging 10, wherein
the partition, with ionic insulation, in this case made of a material through which the electrolyte solutions included in the two electrode bodies 4a and 4b do not pass [0035], comprises an intermediate layer 6 and packaging layers 60, wherein the packaging layers 60 are located on upper and lower surfaces of the intermediate layer, as seen in Fig. 1, and a material of the packaging layers comprises a polymer material [0040]; where the partition is hermetically connected to outer packaging of the electrochemical apparatus, and two separate sealed cavities are formed on both sides of the partition, wherein a first electrode assembly is located in one of the two separate sealed cavities and a second electrode assembly is located in the other of the two separate sealed cavities [0035, 0039, 0075].
Ohashi further teaches the intermediate layer comprising a laminate of a sheet of metal, such as aluminum or stainless steel, and a resin film [0035]. This is considered to read on the limitation of the intermediate layer comprising a second structural layer, in this case the resin film, located on one side of a first structural layer, in this case the sheet of metal, wherein the first structural layer is a different material from the second structural layer. Ohashi is silent as to including a third structural layer located on the other side of the first structural layer, such as including a resin film on either side of the sheet of metal in the laminate. Ohashi is further silent as to a material of each of the first structural layer, the second structural layer, and the third structural layer comprising at least a carbon material. However, Wynn teaches a partition 40 (Fig. 5A) comprising an intermediate layer 26 (Fig. 2) comprising a second structural layer 32 located on one side of a first structural layer 30 and a third structural layer 32 located on the other side of the first structural layer 30. Wynn further teaches the first structural layer comprising a carbon fiber woven with a flame-retardant resin and the second and third structural layers comprising a dielectric material [0029](claim 6).
Ohashi and Wynn are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrochemical apparatus partition layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the partition of Ohashi with the partition composition of Wynn to include a first structural layer comprising a carbon fiber woven with a flame-retardant resin and second and third structural layers, located on either side of the first structural layer, comprising a dielectric material, with one of the packaging layers of Ohashi being on the surface of the second structural layer and another one of the packaging layers being on the surface of the third structural layer. Doing so would have allowed for quick distribution of local heat to avoid damage to the partition, provided sufficient mechanical strength, ensured no harmful impacts between neighboring battery cells, and helped to prevent electrical shorts [Wynn 0029].
Wynn is silent as to the composition of the dielectric material. However, Roumi teaches an electrochemical energy storage system [0006], wherein the three-dimensional electrode array further comprises one or more dielectric materials positioned between each of the plurality of plate electrodes and each of the one or more rod electrodes or around each of the one or more of rod electrodes, the dielectric materials including carbon, nanocarbon, graphene and/or graphite [0024].
Ohashi, Wynn, and Roumi are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of materials for partition electrodes in electrochemical apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ohashi and Wynn to include carbon, nanocarbon, graphene and/or graphite as the dielectric material layer, as taught by Roumi. The selection of a known material, in this case carbon, nanocarbon, graphene and/or graphite, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a dielectric material in an electrochemical apparatus, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Modified Ohashi is silent as to a temperature at which the packaging layers start to soften being at least 10°C lower than a temperature at which the intermediate layer starts to soften. However, modified Ohashi teaches an intermediate layer comprising carbon fiber [Wynn 0029], which is considered to be equivalent to a carbon felt, and graphene and/or graphite [Roumi 0024], which are considered to be equivalent, respectively, to graphene film and graphite film, and a packaging layer comprising one of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, an ethylene-acrylate copolymer, and a polypropylene polymer [Ohashi 0040], which are included in the list of suitable materials disclosed in the instant specification at [0040-0043]. Therefore, it is inherent that a temperature at which the packaging layers start to soften is at least 10°C lower than a temperature at which the intermediate layer starts to soften. When the structure taught by the reference is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ohashi teaches the partition according to claim 1. Ohashi further teaches one of the packaging layers 60 being on at least one surface of the intermediate layer 6 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ohashi teaches the partition according to claim 1. Wynn and Roumi further teach the carbon material comprising a carbon fiber layer [Wynn 0029], which is considered to be equivalent to carbon felt, and graphene and/or graphite [Roumi 0024], which are considered to be equivalent, respectively, to graphene film and graphite film, and Ohashi further teaches the polymer material comprising polypropylene or ethylene and copolymer, in this case ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer or ethylene-acrylate copolymer [Ohashi 0032].
Regarding claims 9 and 12, modified Ohashi teaches the partition according to claim 1. Ohashi further teaches a thickness of the partition being 10 to 100 µm [0035]. This lies within the claimed range of claim 9 of 2 to 500 µm and overlaps with the claimed range of claim 12 of 5 to 50 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a thickness within the claimed ranges. 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).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ohashi teaches the partition according to claim 1. Ohashi is silent as to the temperature at which a material of the intermediate layer starts to soften being greater than 130°C. However, modified Ohashi teaches an intermediate layer comprising carbon fiber [Wynn 0029], which is considered to be equivalent to a carbon felt, and graphene and/or graphite [Roumi 0024], which are considered to be equivalent, respectively, to graphene film and graphite film, which are included in the list of suitable materials disclosed in the instant specification [0041]. Therefore it is inherent that the temperature at which the material of the intermediate layer starts to soften is greater than 130°C. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ohashi teaches the partition according to claim 1. Ohashi is silent as to the temperature at which a material of the packaging layer starts to soften being 120 °C to 240 °C. However, Ohashi teaches the polymer material comprising polypropylene or ethylene and copolymer, in this case ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer or ethylene-acrylate copolymer [Ohashi 0032], which are included in the list of suitable materials disclosed in the instant specification at [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that that the temperature at which a material of the packaging layer starts to soften is 120°C to 240°C. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Ohashi teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 13. Ohashi further teaches an outermost layer of the electrode assembly comprising an electrode comprising an active material coated on a current collector [0027], which is considered to be equivalent to an outermost layer of the electrode assembly comprising a current collector, and the current collector being adjacent to the partition, and a separator 40 used to isolate positive and negative and only allow the passage of lithium ions [0020]. Ohashi does not disclose the outermost layer of the electrode body comprising a separator, and the separator being adjacent to the partition. However, it has been held that rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) see also MPEP 2144.04 IV.C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have an outermost layer of at least one electrode assembly comprising a separator that is adjacent to the partition, as required by claims 14 and 15, and an outermost layer of at least one electrode assembly comprising a current collector that is adjacent to the other side of the partition, as required by claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, modified Ohashi teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 13. Ohashi further teaches an outermost layer of the electrode assembly comprising an electrode comprising an active material coated on a current collector [0027], which is considered to be equivalent to an outermost layer of the electrode assembly comprising a current collector, and the current collector being adjacent to the partition. As seen in Fig. 2, the current collectors of electrode assemblies on both sides of the partition have opposite polarities, in this case the positive 20a and the negative 30b, as required by claim 16. Ohashi further teaches a separator 40 used to isolate positive and negative and only allow the passage of lithium ions [0020].
Regarding claim 17, modified Ohashi teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 15. Wynn further teaches the partition as having negligible electrical conductivity [0027], which is considered to be equivalent to the partition being of electronic insulation. Ohashi further teaches an outermost layer of the electrode assembly comprising an electrode comprising an active material coated on a current collector [0027], which is considered to be equivalent to an outermost layer of the electrode assembly comprising a current collector, and the current collector being adjacent to the partition.
Regarding claim 18, modified Ohashi teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 13. Ohashi further teaches an electronic apparatus, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 13, in this case in self-propelled micromachines, IC cards, and the like, or in a printed board [0059].
Regarding claim 21, modified Ohashi teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1. Ohashi further teaches the partition being configured to separate a first electrode assembly 4a from a second electrode assembly 4b (Fig. 2) [0035, 0074].
Claims 3, 4, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of Wynn and Roumi, as applied above regarding claims 1 and 17, further in view of Amine et al. (US 20020164441 A1), hereinafter Amine.
Modified Ohashi teaches the partition according to claims 1 and 17. Ohashi is silent as to an area of the packaging layer being 30% to 100% of an area of the intermediate layer, as required by claim 3, and as to the packaging layers covering peripheral edges of two surfaces of the intermediate layer, as required by claim 4, or completely covering at least two surfaces of the intermediate layer, as required by claim 19. However, Amine teaches a packaging layer 17 overlaid along 100% of the inside of a metal foil intermediate layer 13 and 15 (Fig. 1 of Amine).
Ohashi and Amine are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of partition walls enclosing electrode assemblies in electrolytic solution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ohashi to overlay the packaging layer along 100% of both surfaces of the intermediate layer, as taught by Amine. Doing so would have trapped any acid released by the electrolyte and prevented degradation of the integrity of the structure, in particular of the intermediate layer [0037]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that overlaying the packaging layer along 100% of both surfaces of the intermediate layer would be equivalent to an area of the packaging layer being 100% of an area of the intermediate layer, as required by claim 3, the packaging layer completely covering at least two surfaces of the intermediate layer, as required by claim 19, and would result in the packaging layers covering peripheral edges of two surfaces of the intermediate layer, as required by claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that using insulating and sealing pieces to seal an electrochemical cell is different from a hermetic connection between the partition itself and the outer packaging. Examiner respectfully points out that the insulating and sealing pieces of the previously used source correspond with the claimed packaging layers. Therefore, if the insulating and sealing pieces of the previously used source produce a different connection that what is claimed, then one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed connection to fall short of that limitation for the same reason. Further, hermetic on its own only means “air tight” without further mention of a sealing process to further define the requirements.
Applicant argues that teaching interchangeability of alternatives is equivalent to suggesting their combination. Upon further consideration, Examiner agrees that such a modification would require hindsight reasoning. However, Examiner respectfully points out that the previous claim limitation recited “the first structural layer is different from the second structural layer,” which was met due to the first and second structural layers being distinct layers. The further suggestion of having different materials in the different layers was not relied upon for the previous limitation.
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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights