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 1-13 and 17-20 are currently pending
Claims 14-16 have been previously withdrawn
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 12, and 17 are amended
New claim 20 has been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 19 September 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Rejection and Objections of the Office Action from 20 June 2025
The double patenting rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7-13, and 19 over copending Application No. 17/708,512 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s terminal disclaimer.
The 112 rejections over claims 5 and 7 have been withdrawn.
The 102 rejections over Ohashi are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment and have been modified to address the new limitation.
The 103 rejections over Ohashi and over Ohashi in view of Amine and in view of He are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment and have been modified to address the new claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohashi et al. (US 20100246095 A1), hereinafter Ohashi.
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 and required by claims 1 and 12;
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 required by claims 1, 5, and 12, or stainless steel [0035], as required by claims 1, 6, and 12;
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 required by claims 1, 7, and 12; 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], as required by claims 1 and 12.
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 further 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.
Regarding claim 8, Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the partition plate is 10 µm to 100 µm [0035] which lies within the claimed range of 2 µm to 500 µm.
Regarding claim 19, Ohashi teaches an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises the electrochemical device according to claim 12, in this case self-propelled micromachines, IC cards, and the like [0059].
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 11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi.
Regarding claim 11 and 18, Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1 and the electrochemical device according to claim 12, wherein the thickness of the partition plate is 10 µm to 100 µm [0035]. This 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, Ohashi teaches the electrochemical device according to claim 12, wherein the electrode assemblies 4a and 4b include a separator 40 to provide electrical insulation between the positive electrodes 20a and 20b and the negative electrodes 30a and 30b. 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.
Claims 2-3, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of Amine et al. (US 20020164441 A1), hereinafter Amine.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 17 Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1 and the electrochemical device according to claim 12. Ohashi is silent as to an area of the sealing layer being 30% to 100% of an area of the intermediate layer or at least one surface of the intermediate layer being fully overlaid with the sealing layer. However, Amine teaches a battery housing comprising a flexible packaging having an intermediate layer 13 and 15 that is fully overlaid by a sealing layer 17 (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 layered partitions enclosing 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 partition of Ohashi with the teachings of Amine and fully overlay the sealing layer 60, of Ohashi, onto both sides of the intermediate layer 6, of Ohashi, as required by claim 3, which would be equivalent to an area of the sealing layer being 100% of an area of the intermediate layer, as required by claims 2 and 17. Doing so would have trapped any acid released by the electrolyte and prevented degradation of the integrity of the structure, in particular the intermediate layer [0037].
Regarding claim 20, Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1. Ohashi is silent as to the second polymer material comprising at least one of acid anhydride modified polypropylene, polystyrene, polyether nitrile, polyurethane, amorphous α-olefin copolymer, or a derivative of the foregoing substances. However, Amine teaches a sealing layer comprising a second polymer material comprising α-olefin copolymers and nitrile resin films [0030].
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 Amine. Doing so would have provided increased resistance to the permeability and chemical reactivity of the electrolyte [Amine 0031]. Further, the selection of a known material, in this case α-olefin copolymers and nitrile resin films, 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).
Claims 4 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of He et al. (US 20160020481 A1), hereinafter He.
Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1. Ohashi is silent as to the intermediate layer comprising a carbon material. However, He teaches a partition plate 4 (Fig. 1 of He) separating two electrode assemblies, the partition plate comprising carbon fiber plate or graphite plate, which are considered to be equivalent to carbon film and graphite film [0046].
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 intermediate layer of Ohashi with the material of He. The selection of a known material 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 claim 20, Ohashi teaches the partition plate according to claim 1. Ohashi is silent as to the second polymer material comprising at least one of acid anhydride modified polypropylene, polystyrene, polyether nitrile, polyurethane, amorphous α-olefin copolymer, or a derivative of the foregoing substances. However, He teaches a sealing layer comprising a second polymer material comprising polystyrene and polyurethane [0032].
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 filed 19 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Applicant argues that Ohashi fails to teach or suggest the claimed feature of both peripheral edges of the upper surface and both peripheral edges of the lower surface of the intermediate layer being overlaid with the sealing layer because sealing member 60 of Ohashi is only taught to be located around the leads 50a, 50b, 52a, and 52b on one side of the battery. Examiner agrees with this statement. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim as written in claims 1 and 12 conveys the same meaning.
The current first wording of “peripheral edges of both the upper surface and the lower surface of the intermediate layer” could be interpreted as meaning one peripheral edge of the upper surface and one peripheral edge of the lower surface together being considered as multiple peripheral edges among both the upper surface and the lower surface of the intermediate layer. Therefore, the current wording is not considered to be equivalent to what Applicant seems to be trying to claim in a second wording of “both peripheral edges of the upper surface and both peripheral edges of the lower surface of the intermediate layer,” which Examiner would interpret to mean at least two peripheral edges of the upper surface and at least two peripheral edges of the lower surface of the intermediate layer.
Further, neither of the aforementioned wordings is equivalent to the third possibly intended meaning mentioned in the remarks of the sealing member being arranged along “all four peripheral edges” of the intermediate layer. Examiner notes that, as written, this third wording of a possibly intended meaning could be interpreted to mean the thin exterior perimeter of the intermediate layer that is not considered to be a part of the upper surface or lower surface. Provided that the intended meaning was to say “along all four peripheral edges of the upper surface and along all four peripheral edges of the lower surface,” then this fourth wording would be interpreted as written where the sealing layer would need to be overlaid along all four peripheral edges of each surface.
With the previous wordings and interpretations in mind, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes the following:
Ohashi is considered to teach the first wording, as is currently required by claims 1 and 12, but would not be considered to teach the other options on its own.
Ohashi in view of He could be considered to teach the second wording since Ohashi teaches four leads on one side and He teaches two leads on both sides with the sealing layer present on both peripheral edges of the upper surface and both peripheral edges of the lower surface.
Ohashi in view of Amine could be considered to teach the second and fourth wordings because Amine teaches fully overlaying the intermediate layer with sealing layer, as will be discussed regarding the argument against claims 2-3 and 17 below, which inherently means covering at least two peripheral edges of each surface, for the second wording, and all four peripheral edges of each surface, for the fourth wording.
The third wording, though probably unintended, would likely be considered new matter because the sealing layer is taught to be applied to the upper and lower surface of the intermediate layer, not around the outside edge.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 17, Applicant concedes that Amine teaches fully overlaying the sealing layer onto the entire surface area of the intermediate layer, which Examiner notes inherently means that the peripheral edges of the surface would be overlaid with the sealing layer, but argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Amine that the sealing layer should be overlaid on both surfaces of the intermediate layer. Examiner agrees that Amine itself does not teach a sealing layer on both surfaces of the intermediate layer. However, Examiner notes that the current wording of claims 2-3 and 17 is broad enough to only require one surface being overlaid. Claim 3 directly says “at least one surface” is fully overlaid and, in claims 2 and 17, “an area of the sealing layer” compared to “an area of the intermediate layer” could be interpreted as referring to one surface instead of both.
Further, although Amine teaches the sealing layer being present on only one surface of the corresponding intermediate layer, Amine teaches the sealing layer being present on that entire surface in order to prevent the degradation of the integrity of the laminate structure, in particular the metal foil layers 13 and 15, that could occur due to acid being released by the electrolyte [0037]. Therefore, when moving a similar intermediate layer into the middle of the cell, as taught by Ohashi, it would have been obvious to fully overlay the sealing layer of Ohashi across both surfaces of the intermediate layer, as taught by Amine, in order to protect both sides from degradation that could be caused by the electrolyte that is present on both sides of the intermediate layer, rather than just one.
Regarding new claim 20, Applicant argues that none of the presented sources disclose or suggest any of the revised materials listed. Examiner agrees that Ohashi does not. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that Amine and He do not, because, as noted above, Amine teaches a sealing layer comprising a second polymer material comprising α-olefin copolymers and nitrile resin films [0030] and He teaches a sealing layer comprising a second polymer material comprising polystyrene and polyurethane [0032].
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 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
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights