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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending
Claims 1, 2, 12, and 17 are amended
Claim 3 has been cancelled
Claims 14-16 have been previously withdrawn
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 10 March 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 12 January 2026
The 102 rejections over Ohashi and the 103 rejections over Ohashi, over Ohashi in view of Amine, and over Ohashi in view of He (US 20160020481 A1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection has been set forth over Ohashi in view of He (CN 104143652 A), 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 1-2, 4-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of He et al. (CN 104143652 A), hereinafter He.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, and 12, Ohashi teaches an electrochemical device, in this case an electric double layer capacitor [0002], comprising: at least one partition plate 6 and 60, as required by claim 1, at least two electrode assemblies 4a and 4b, an electrolytic solution [0041], and an outer package 10, and the electrode assemblies 4a and 4b are located in an independent hermetic chamber [0039], all as required by claim 12; wherein,
the partition plate 6 and 60 comprises an intermediate layer 6 and a sealing layer 60, and the sealing layer 60 is located on an upper surface and a lower surface of the intermediate layer 6, as seen in Fig. 2;
a material of the intermediate layer 6 comprises at least one of a carbon material, a first polymer material, or a metal material, in this case a polypropylene resin [0035], as also required by claim 5, or stainless steel [0035], as also required by claim 6;
a material of the sealing layer 60 comprises a second polymer material, in this case ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-acrylate copolymer, or polypropylene [0040], as also required by claim 7, and
wherein the partition plate is ion-insulative, in this case the partition plate is taught to not allow passage of the electrolytic solutions, which is considered to read on being ion-insulative [0035].
Ohashi is silent as to the temperature at which the intermediate layer 6 and the sealing layer 60 start to soften. However, Ohashi teaches the intermediate layer 6 comprising polypropylene or stainless steel [0035] and the sealing layer 60 comprising ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-acrylate copolymer, or polypropylene [0040], all of which are included in the list of suitable materials disclosed in the instant specification at [0042-0045]. Therefore, it is inherent that a temperature at which the sealing layer 60 starts to soften is at least 10 °C lower than a temperature at which the intermediate layer 6 starts to soften, as required by claims 1 and 12, the temperature at which the material of the intermediate layer starts to soften is higher than 130 °C, as required by claim 9, and the temperature at which the material of the sealing layer starts to soften is 120 °C to 240 °C, as required by claim 10. "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). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Ohashi teaches peripheral edges of both the upper surface and the lower surface of the intermediate layer 6 being overlaid with the sealing layer 60, as seen in Fig. 2. However, Ohashi is silent as to the sealing layer being overlaid on all peripheral edges of the upper surface and all the peripheral edges of the lower surface. Ohashi is further silent as to a central surface portion of the upper surface located inwards of the peripheral edges of the upper surface and a central surface portion of the lower surface located inwards of the peripheral edges of the lower surface being free of the sealing layer. However, He teaches a partition plate 4 (He Fig. 1a) separating two electrode assemblies 5 comprising a sealing layer with a sealing edge D that is overlaid on all peripheral edges of the upper surface and all the peripheral edges of the lower surface with a central surface portion of the upper surface located inwards of the peripheral edges of the upper surface and a central surface portion of the lower surface located inwards of the peripheral edges of the lower surface being free of the sealing layer (He Fig. 1e).
Ohashi and He are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of partitions separating electrode assemblies. 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 sealing layer of Ohashi to include the sealing edge D of He. Doing so would have prevented evaporation of the electrolyte and deformation of the diaphragm during heat sealing, each of which would lead to diminished battery performance and safety (pg. 5, ¶ 4 and 6).
Regarding claims 2 and 17 modified Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1 and the electrochemical device according to claim 12. He does not explicitly disclose a total area of the sealing layer. As the thermal capacity of the sealing layer and the overall capacity of the battery are both variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the total area of the sealing layer, with sealing layer thermal capacity increasing and battery capacity decreasing as the total area of the sealing layer increases in a set space, and potentially encroaching on the total area of the electrodes, the total area of the sealing layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed total area of the sealing layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the total area of the sealing layer in the apparatus of Ohashi in view of He to obtain the desired balance between sealing layer thermal capacity and overall battery capacity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1. He further teaches the partition plate comprising carbon fiber plate or graphite plate, which are considered to be equivalent to carbon film and graphite film (pg. 3, ¶ 3).
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 intermediate layer of Ohashi with the material of He. The selection of a known material, in this case carbon fiber plate or graphite plate, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as an intermediate layer between two electrode assemblies, supports a prima facie obviousness determination. In re Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 18, modified Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1. Ohashi further teaches a thickness of the partition plate being 10 µm to 100 µm [0035] which lies within the claimed range of 2 µm to 500 µm and overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm to 50 µm. 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 13, modified Ohashi teaches the electrochemical device according to claim 12. Ohashi further teaches the electrode assemblies 4a and 4b including a separator 40 to provide electrical insulation between the positive electrodes 20a and 20b and the negative electrodes 30a and 30b [0034]. Ohashi is silent as to an outermost layer of the electrode assemblies containing a separator and the separator 40 being adjacent to the partition plate. However, it has been held that rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the separator be formed on the outermost layer of the electrode body in order to improve electrical insulation of the positive and negative electrodes.
Regarding claim 19, modified Ohashi teaches an electronic device. Ohashi further teaches the electronic device comprising the electrochemical device according to claim 12, in this case self-propelled micromachines, IC cards, and the like [0059].
Regarding claim 20, modified Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1. Ohashi further teaches the second polymer material comprising ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-acrylate copolymer, or polypropylene [0040] and He further teaches a second polymer material comprising polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyurethane (pg. 8, ¶ 7). Therefore, polystyrene and polyurethane are considered to be art recognized equivalents to polypropylene.
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 second polymer of Ohashi to include a second polymer taught by He. The selection of a known material, in this case polystyrene and polyurethane, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a second polymer for a sealing layer, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Ohashi with the polystyrene and polyurethane of He in such a way that would result in the desired difference in softening temperatures. Examiner respectfully points out that the noted limitations are directed to separate claims.
Regarding the desired difference in softening temperatures mentioned in claims 1, 9-12, and 18, Ohashi teaches the intermediate layer 6 comprising polypropylene or stainless steel [0035] and the sealing layer 60 comprising ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene-acrylate copolymer, or polypropylene [0040], all of which are included in the list of suitable materials disclosed in the instant specification at [0042-0045]. Therefore, the desired difference in softening temperatures is considered to be inherent because "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). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding the use of polystyrene and polyurethane in claim 20, He teaches polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyurethane as a second polymer material. Therefore, polystyrene and polyurethane are considered to be art recognized equivalents of polypropylene and it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polypropylene of Ohashi with the art recognized equivalent polystyrene or polyurethane of He. Polystyrene and polyurethane are also included in the list of suitable materials disclosed in the instant specification. Therefore, they are also considered to inherently fulfill the desired difference in softening temperatures for the same reasons as polypropylene.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110091770 A1 teaches a current collector and a sealing layer that is overlaid on all peripheral edges of the upper surface and all the peripheral edges of the lower surface with a central surface portion of the upper surface located inwards of the peripheral edges of the upper surface and a central surface portion of the lower surface located inwards of the peripheral edges of the lower surface being free of the sealing layer and has a total area that is from 30% to less than 100% of a total surface area of the current collector.
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
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights