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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-7, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Komaki et al. (JP 2009009734 A), Fields (US 2013/0139741 A1), Koh et al. (US 2009/0092896 A1), Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0411920 A1), Newman et al. ("A Survey of Automated Visual Inspection", Computer Vision and Image Understanding 61(2), pp. 231-262, March 1995), and Guen (US 2020/0091570 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrode leads" in the fifth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the electrode leads" in the fourth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the electrode leads" in the fifth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-16, 18, and 20 depend from these claims and therefore include the same indefinite limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki et al. (JP 2009009734 A; citations refer to attached English translation) in view of Fields (US 2013/0139741 A1) and Guen (US 2020/0091570 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Komaki teaches battery comprising a case (frame-shaped casing; Komaki [0002]); an electrode assembly in the case (cell 4 in Komaki Fig. 7); and a film wrapped around a surface of the battery, including the edges (label 1).
Komaki does not teach that the film is coated with a reflective material. Field teaches that applying reflective coatings to visual indicators of excessive stress enhances visibility (Fields [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply a reflective coating to the film of Komaki to enhance visibility.
While Field is not from the same field of endeavor as the instant application, it is directed to visual indications of excessive stress (Fields Abstract), which is the same problem that both the instant application and Komaki seek to address. It is therefore considered reasonably pertinent and qualifies as analogous art. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I.
Komaki does not teach that the label is configured to be torn or cut on the surface at which the electrode leads are disposed. Guen teaches that visual pressure indicators situated on the terminal face of a prismatic battery (Guen Fig. 2 and [0044]-[0045]) may be used for batteries in a stacked configuration (Guen Fig. 6 and [0070]-[0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to place the label of Komaki such that the portion configured to be cut or torn (i.e. the visual indicator) is situated on the terminal face when the batteries are used in a stacked configuration.
Regarding claim 2, all materials reflect visible light. The film of modified Komaki is therefore necessarily a visible light reflective film.
Regarding claim 12, the label of modified Komaki will necessarily have a predetermined elasticity based on its component materials.
Regarding claim 13, the film of modified Komaki is torn when a predetermined amount of tensile stress is applied to the film (Komaki [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, the film of modified Komaki includes a partial incision portion (cut groove 1a, Komaki Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Field and Guen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koh et al. (US 2009/0092896 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Komaki does not teach the use of a heat shrinkable film on the case. Koh teaches that labels may be attached to such batteries as a shrink-wrap type film (i.e., a heat shrinkable film) (Koh [0055]). Applying a known technique (shrink wrapping) to a known device ready for improvement (the battery of Komaki) to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143 1(D)).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Field, Guen, and Koh as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0411920 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Komaki does not teach the use of a heat conductive film between the heat shrinkable film and the case. Suzuki teaches a heat conductive film (Suzuki conductive laminate sheet 60, Figs. 12-13) applied to a battery case (20) in order to more accurately monitor battery temperature (Suzuki [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the thermally conductive member of Suzuki into the battery of modified Komaki in view of Koh in order to improve temperature monitoring. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the thermally conductive layer before the shrink-wrap layer in order to maximize thermal contact with the battery.
Regarding claim 5, the heat conductive film of modified Komaki comprises a protrusion (Suzuki second portion 60b, Figs. 12-13) formed on the surface.
Regarding claim 14, the protrusion (Suzuki 60b) conducts heat from the heat conductive film to a temperature sensor (Suzuki [0081]).
Regarding claim 6, applying the label (the film) by shrink-wrapping would necessarily require integrating the label with the heat shrinkable film.
Regarding claim 15, applying the label (the film) by shrink-wrapping would necessarily require the label to be at least a part of the heat shrinkable film, which necessarily extends around the battery, and would require applying the reflective material to the film.
Claim(s) 7, 9-11, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Field and Guen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman et al. ("A Survey of Automated Visual Inspection", Computer Vision and Image Understanding 61(2), pp. 231-262, March 1995).
Regarding claim 7, modified Komaki teaches a battery pack comprising the battery (Komaki Claim 1). Modified Komaki does not teach the use of a swelling sensing unit comprising a light irradiation portion and a sensor, wherein the sensor senses light reflected from the film. Modified Komaki teaches that swelling is detected by visual (i.e., manual) inspection. Newman teaches that automated inspection allows for 100% inspection and improved accuracy (Newman 1.2.4. Why Automated Inspection?). Newman further teaches that binary inspection using simple sensors and controlled lighting is cost effective for such tasks (Newman 2.3.1. Inspection Using Binary Images). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to implement a binary inspection system for the battery of Komaki, including adding a light sensor and lighting (i.e., a light irradiation portion) in order to improve swelling inspection.
Regarding claim 9, Newman teaches that binary inspection typically operates by pixel counting or boundary examination (Newman 2.3.1. Inspection Using Binary Images), both of which would require irradiating, by the light irradiation portion, the film of the battery with light; sensing, by the sensor, the light reflected from the film; and determining, by the swelling sensing unit, swelling of the battery based on an amount of light sensed by the sensor.
Regarding claim 10, determining that the battery is swelled by binary inspection would necessarily require the swelling sensing unit determining the amount of light sensed by the sensor has changed.
Regarding claim 11, the label of modified Komaki is on the side of the battery pack, so the light irradiation portion and the sensor would necessarily be at the same side of the battery pack.
Regarding claim 17, modified Komaki teaches a battery pack comprising battery with a film on its surfaces (Komaki label 10 and Claim 1). Modified Komaki does not teach the use of a swelling sensing unit comprising a light irradiation portion and a sensor, wherein the sensor senses light reflected from the film. Modified Komaki teaches that swelling is detected by visual (i.e., manual) inspection. Newman teaches that automated inspection allows for 100% inspection and improved accuracy (Newman 1.2.4. Why Automated Inspection?). Newman further teaches that binary inspection using simple sensors and controlled lighting is cost effective for such tasks (Newman 2.3.1. Inspection Using Binary Images). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to implement a binary inspection system for the battery of Komaki, including adding a light sensor and lighting (i.e., a light irradiation portion) in order to improve swelling inspection.
Modified Komaki does not teach that a plurality of the batteries is incorporated into the battery pack. However, it is well known that a plurality of such batteries is typically stacked in a battery pack (see [10]-[12] of the instant specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the batteries of Komaki for any conventional use, including as a plurality in a battery pack, which would yield predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In addition, including the sensor and light source of Newman in such a pack would necessarily require targeting at least one of the batteries.
Modified Komaki does not teach that the label is configured to be torn or cut on the surface at which the electrode leads are disposed. Guen teaches that visual pressure indicators situated on the terminal face of a prismatic battery (Guen Fig. 2) may be used for batteries in a stacked configuration (Guen Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to place the label of Komaki such that the portion configured to be cut or torn (i.e. the visual indicator) is situated on the terminal face when the batteries are used in a stacked configuration.
Regarding claim 18, Newman teaches that binary inspection typically operates by pixel counting or boundary examination (Newman 2.3.1. Inspection Using Binary Images), both of which would require irradiating, by the light irradiation portion, the film of the battery with light; sensing, by the sensor, the light reflected from the film; and determining, by the swelling sensing unit, swelling of the battery based on an amount of light sensed by the sensor.
Regarding claim 19, modified Komaki teaches a battery pack comprising battery with a film on its surfaces (Komaki label 10 and Claim 1). Modified Komaki does not teach the use of a swelling sensing unit comprising a light irradiation portion and a sensor, wherein the sensor senses light reflected from the film. Modified Komaki teaches that swelling is detected by visual (i.e., manual) inspection. Newman teaches that automated inspection allows for 100% inspection and improved accuracy (1.2.4. Why Automated Inspection?). Newman further teaches that binary inspection using simple sensors and controlled lighting is cost effective for such tasks (2.3.1. Inspection Using Binary Images). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to implement a binary inspection system for the battery of Komaki, including adding a light sensor and lighting (i.e., a light irradiation portion) in order to improve swelling inspection.
Modified Komaki does not teach that a plurality of the batteries is incorporated into the battery pack. However, it is well known that a plurality of such batteries is typically stacked in a battery pack (see [10]-[12] of the instant specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the batteries of modified Komaki for any conventional use, including as a plurality in a battery pack, which would yield predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In addition, including the sensor and light source of Newman in such a pack would necessarily require targeting at least one of the batteries.
Newman teaches that binary inspection typically operates by pixel counting or boundary examination (Newman 2.3.1. Inspection Using Binary Images), both of which would require irradiating, by the light irradiation portion, the film of the battery with light; sensing, by the sensor, the light reflected from the film; and determining, by the swelling sensing unit, swelling of the battery based on an amount of light sensed by the sensor.
Modified Komaki does not teach that the label is configured to be torn or cut on the surface at which the electrode leads are disposed. Guen teaches that visual pressure indicators situated on the terminal face of a prismatic battery (Guen Fig. 2) may be used for batteries in a stacked configuration (Guen Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to place the label of Komaki such that the portion configured to be cut or torn (i.e. the visual indicator) is situated on the terminal face when the batteries are used in a stacked configuration.
Regarding claim 20, the film of modified Komaki includes a partial incision portion (Komaki cut groove 1a, Fig. 3). Neither Komaki nor Newman teaches that the light irradiation portion irradiates the partial incision portion with the light. However, Newman teaches that controlled lighting eliminate unwanted shadows, highlights, and noisy backgrounds (2.3.1. Inspection Using Binary Images). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide controlled lighting, which would necessarily involve directly lighting the incision, in order to eliminate unwanted shadows, highlights, and noisy backgrounds.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki in view of Field, Guen, and Newman as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Suzuki.
Modified Komaki does not teach a cooling portion coupled to a protrusion formed on the surface. Suzuki teaches a heat conductive film (Suzuki conductive laminate sheet 60, Figs. 12-13) with a protrusion on its surface (Suzuki 60b) applied to a battery case (Suzuki 20) in order to more accurately monitor battery temperature (Suzuki [0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the thermally conductive member of Suzuki into the battery of modified Komaki in order to improve temperature monitoring.
Suzuki teaches that the protrusion is coupled to a temperature detection element (Suzuki 70; [0081]-[0082]). During normal operation, the temperature detection element will necessarily be at a lower temperature than the battery and will therefore cool the battery through thermal contact with the protrusion.
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights