DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/10/2026 has 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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 10-13, 20-22 and 27, in the reply filed on 4/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 23-25, 26, and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
As a result of the withdrawal of claims 23-25, 26, and 28, all rejections from the prior Office Action applied to these claims are automatically withdrawn.
Specification & Drawings
3. The prior objection to the specification is withdrawn; the amendments filed to P32 and P37 are accepted.
The prior Office Action objection to the drawings is withdrawn; the replacement sheets filed 3/10/2026 are accepted.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 38’ (amendments filed on 10/24/2025 but not carried over to new replacement sheet for Fig. 4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the correction filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The rejection of claims 19 and 25 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 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 23, and thus dependent claims 24-26, 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 is withdrawn in view of the claims being withdrawn and non-elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13, and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof) is maintained. Newly added claim 27 is also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claim 1, Kurihara teaches a battery apparatus (Figs. 1-8; entire disclosure relied upon) configured to supply electric power to an electric work machine (P32), comprising:
a first plurality of battery cells 1 each having a first end spaced from a second end along a longitudinal axis (P30; Figs. 3, 4, 7);
an exterior case 9 (“casing”), which houses the first plurality of battery cells 1 (P31-34; Figs. 1-3);
a battery holder 2 in the casing holding the first plurality of battery cells 1 (P30, 41-45; Figs. 3-4, 6-7);
a control circuit board 4 mounted on the first cell holder 4 (P43) in the casing 9 and disposed parallel to the longitudinal axes (P50-52; Fig. 3); and
a plurality of circuit board elements on a side of the control circuit board opposite the first cell holder 4 (illustrated – see Fig. 3)
Kurihara teaches the use of insulating plate 11 (“a first body”) (P35-36) made of a material having excellent insulating and heat insulating properties such as a mica plate that is plate-shaped and is disposed opposing first ends of the plurality of battery cells 1, and is located within casing 9 (P35-36; Fig. 3). Kurihara fails to disclose that insulating plate 11 (“first body”) comprises at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches an analogous art of a battery apparatus comprising a protective cover 24 provided in the same location (i.e., opposing the terminals 21P of the plurality of battery cells 21), and that it is a known technique to provide said protective cover 24 with a heat resistance material as well as a fire extinguishing material such as hydrate that can extinguish fire with the use of water vapor during fire (“at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative catalyst effect with respect to combustion”) (P86).
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 insulating plate 11 (“first body”) of Kurihara with at least one fire extinguishing material such as hydrate that can extinguish fire with the use of water vapor during fire (“at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative catalyst effect with respect to combustion”) given the technique and analogous construct are taught by Suzuki (P62-65, 86-87), in order to provide the predictable and advantageous result of providing the insulating plate 11 with a fire extinguishing ability (P86) (i.e., “a fire fire-extinguishing body”).
Kurihara further fails to disclose a second fire-extinguishing body that comprises at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion that exists within casing 9 and is disposed between the control circuit board 4 and the first cell holder 2.
In the same field of endeavor, Haino teaches analogous art of a power supply device including a plurality of batteries 1 with analogous battery cell holder 2, a circuit board 4 having a plurality of circuit board elements on a side opposite the cell holder 2, the circuit board 4 also mounted on the cell holder 2 (Figs. 1-4; abstract; P 18-36), wherein it is a known technique to provide a heat blocking layer 6 having a layered structured and including molten layer 7 that includes a material provide a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P28), the construct preventing the circuit board mounted with protection circuits from being damaged by high-temperature exhaust gas from the battery block to ensure a high level of safety (abstract; P7, 25; entire disclosure relied upon).
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 battery apparatus of Kurihara with the heat blocking layer 6 in the same location (i.e., intervening between the bottom of the circuit board 4 and the top of the cell holder 2) such that it exists within the casing 9 and has a molten layer 7 that includes a material provide a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P28) (i.e., “a second fire-extinguishing body”) given the technique and construct are taught by Haino which provides the predictable and advantageous result of protecting the circuit board mounted with protection circuits from being damaged by high-temperature exhaust gas from the battery block to ensure a high level of safety (abstract; entire disclosure relied upon).
Kurihara teaches wherein the control circuit board 4 is located entirely on a first side of a virtual plane parallel to the longitudinal axes and each of the first plurality of battery cells 1 is located on a second side of the virtual plane (Fig. 3).
With respect to the above combination of references, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 962 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 10706 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Regarding claim 2, Kurihara does not explicitly teach wherein a state of charge of the first plurality of battery cells 1 is 90% or more. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein charging the cells to their full state of charge or close thereto in order that the battery cells are operational for their intended purpose of discharging to provide energy to the device would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable result of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 3, Kurihara fails to explicitly teach wherein the each of the first plurality of battery cells has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 4, Kurihara as modified by Haino teaches heat blocking layer 6 includes an insulating layer 8 (“a protective member”) which covers at least a portion of the second fire-extinguishing body (P29) (alternatively; substrate 9 reads on the claimed protective member as well as taught by Haino) (P29-33).
Regarding claim 5, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises four cylindrical-shaped battery cells. Thus, Kurihara does not explicitly teach five or more cylindrical-shaped battery cells; however, the addition of more cells to meet voltage and/or current requirements is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching each battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the construct of Kurihara with any number of cells to meet required voltage and/or current requirements of the battery apparatus as would be immediately known to one skilled in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching it is a known technique and construct to provide a battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five (Suzuki: Fig 3; Haino: Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Kurihara teaches wherein:
the casing 9 has a chamber (best shown in Fig. 2), which houses the first plurality of battery cells 1, the insulating plate 11 modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) and the heat blocking layer 6 (“the second fire-extinguishing body”) (Kurihara as modified by Haino) located between the circuit board 4 and the cell holder (see rejection of claim 1). Kurihara teaches the chamber is sealed by way of joint surface 8 (Fig. 2; P63).
Regarding claim 7, Kurihara teaches wherein the insulating plate 11 modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is located opposing terminals of the first plurality of battery cells (Fig. 3, 7, and 8; Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 8, Kurihara teaches wherein the insulating plate 11 modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is disposed opposing positive terminals of the first plurality of battery cells (i.e., at least two positive terminals – see Figs. 6-8; P46-49).
In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that configuring the plurality of batteries such that all terminals face a given direction to achieve a desired electrical configuration would be an immediately obvious expedient to one skilled in the art, the configuration taught by Suzuki (Fig. 3 has all positive terminals 21P facing protective cover 24).
Regarding claim 10, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises lithium-ion battery cells (P34).
Regarding claim 11, Kurihara fails to explicitly teach wherein the each of the first plurality of battery cells has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara as modified by Haino teaches heat blocking layer 6 includes an insulating layer 8 (“a protective member”) which covers at least a portion of the second fire-extinguishing body (P29) (alternatively; substrate 9 reads on the claimed protective member as well as taught by Haino) (P29-33).
Regarding claim 13, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises four cylindrical-shaped battery cells. Thus, Kurihara does not explicitly teach five or more cylindrical-shaped battery cells; however, the addition of more cells to meet voltage and/or current requirements is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching each battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the construct of Kurihara with any number of cells to meet required voltage and/or current requirements of the battery apparatus as would be immediately known to one skilled in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching it is a known technique and construct to provide a battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five (Suzuki: Fig 3; Haino: Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Kurihara teaches the battery apparatus further including a second cell holder 2 in the casing holding a second plurality of battery cells (Fig. 3; see the separate battery blocks 10, 10).
Regarding claim 21, Kurihara teaches wherein: the insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is substantially rectangular (see Fig. 3 of Kurihara), and the heat blocking layer 6 (“the second fire-extinguishing body”) (Kurihara as modified by Haino) is plate-shaped and rectangular (Figs. 1-4).
The insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is substantially rectangular, although it has the corners missing such that it is not exactly rectangular. The courts have held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration is significant, the change in form, shape, or design of a claimed configuration is held a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill would have found obvious (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) such that it is exactly rectangular (no corners missing) versus generally rectangular as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 27, Kurihara as modifed by Haino teaches wherein the heat blocking layer 6 that exists within the casing 9 and has a molten layer 7 that includes a material provide a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P28) (“the second fire-extinguishing body”) has a length less than a length of the analogous first cell holder 2 on which the second fire-extinguishing body is mounted (see Figs. 2-3). Accordingly, the specific design construct claimed is taught by Haino. It is noted that “a length” is emphasized by way of italicizes given the claim does not define the claimed lengths respect to any other entity relative to a given direction such that multiple interpretations of what the claimed “lengths” may constitute exist. It appears that in any direction selected, the feature is met.
Accordingly, applying this known design construct of the length of the second fire-extinguishing body being less than a length of battery holder 2 (“first cell holder”) of Kurihara (any dimension/direction selected for the length) is considered an obvious expedient in the absence of new or unexpected results fully commensurate in scope with the claimed construct for which objective evidence in the record exists. It is noted that the Examiner has reviewed the instant application for any denoted criticality of the claimed feature and found none, the limitation being added to the both specification and claim solely on the basis of the drawings without any explanation or criticality attributed to the feature within the instant application.
Additionally, the length and size of the heat blocking layer 6 that exists within the casing 9 and has a molten layer 7 that includes a material provide a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P28) (“the second fire-extinguishing body”) of Haino is dictated by the size of the control circuit board that it is protecting (see the figures of Haino). The shapes, including the lengths, of both of the claimed first cell holder and the control circuit board, and thus that of the second fire-extinguishing body protecting it, are considered purely routine design features absent objective evidence in the record of some criticality attributed thereto. A person of ordinary skill in the art, viewing the teachings of Kurihara and Haino would recognize that the desired number of cells would largely dictate the length/shape of the first cell holder utilized, and the number and complexity of protection circuits/elements thereon would largely dictate the length/shape of the control circuit board utilized, and thus subsequently the size and length of the corresponding second fire-extinguishing body.
Therefore, in the absence of new or unexpected results, the determination of desired shape, including lengths of each of the battery holder 2 (“first cell holder”) and the control circuit board 4 of Kurikara, and thus the corresponding size/length of the second fire extinguishing body, would be purely an exercise in design choice, the court holding that 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).
8. Claims 2 and 11-13 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Tabatowski-Bush et al. (US 2020/0011934).
Regarding claim 2, Kurihara does not explicitly teach wherein a state of charge of the first plurality of battery cells 1 is 90% or more. Tabatowski-Bush teaches analogous art of a battery apparatus and that the desire is for each cell to be at 100% SOC at the end of a charge cycle is so that the device (vehicle in this case) will have the maximum range while not jeopardizing the cell (P27), wherein as would be recognized to one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of what the battery apparatus is selected to power (i.e., vehicle, power tool, cell phone, etc.), the desire of the user would be that the battery/batteries are capable of discharging for the longest duration of time to have the longest use period which would be predicated on the amount of initial charge or SOC percentage (P27).
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 first plurality of battery cells with a state of charge to 100% SOC, a value anticipating the range claimed of “90% or more,” in order to provide the known, predictable result of allowing for the battery/batteries to have the most range or usefulness to the user while not jeopardizing the cell safety as taught by Tabatowski-Bush (P27).
Regarding claim 11, Kurihara fails to explicitly teach wherein the each of the first plurality of battery cells has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara as modified by Haino teaches heat blocking layer 6 includes an insulating layer 8 (“a protective member”) which covers at least a portion of the second fire-extinguishing body (P29) (alternatively; substrate 9 reads on the claimed protective member as well as taught by Haino) (P29-33).
Regarding claim 13, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises four cylindrical-shaped battery cells. Thus, Kurihara does not explicitly teach five or more cylindrical-shaped battery cells; however, the addition of more cells to meet voltage and/or current requirements is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching each battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the construct of Kurihara with any number of cells to meet required voltage and/or current requirements of the battery apparatus as would be immediately known to one skilled in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching it is a known technique and construct to provide a battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five (Suzuki: Fig 3; Haino: Figs. 1-3).
9. Claims 3 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaben et al. (US 2014/0308576).
Regarding claim 3, Kazuhira fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy density of the one or more battery cell(s) (each) has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Gaben teaches analogous art of a battery and that its energy density is preferably more than 500 Wh/liter (P68). Accordingly, Gaben demonstrates the optimization of the parameter is known in the state of the prior art, and provide a range overlapping with the claimed range of 300 Wh/liter such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the range itself (see MPEP § 2144.05).
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 one or more battery cells with a given volumetric energy density in order to meet the demands of the tool/device it is intended to power, Gaben teaching the parameter is a known parameter to optimize and teaches a range overlapping with the claimed range (P68) such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the range itself (see MPEP § 2144.05).
10. Claims 11-13 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157), Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof), and Tabatowski-Bush et al. (US 2020/0011934) as applied to at least claim 2 above, and further in view of Gaben et al. (US 2014/0308576).
Regarding claim 11, Kazuhira fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy density of the one or more battery cell(s) (each) has an energy density of 300 Wh/liter or more. The feature claimed is drawn to the volumetric energy density, or the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume. The entire purpose of a battery, as would be immediately understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is to provide energy, or power, to a given device, wherein optimizing the amount of energy/power (i.e., the purpose of the device) would be a routine endeavor for one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the predictable results of providing a battery cell (or battery module/pack) that is capable of meeting the energy/power requirements of the tool/device it is intended to power.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Gaben teaches analogous art of a battery and that its energy density is preferably more than 500 Wh/liter (P68). Accordingly, Gaben demonstrates the optimization of the parameter is known in the state of the prior art, and provide a range overlapping with the claimed range of 300 Wh/liter such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the range itself (see MPEP § 2144.05).
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 one or more battery cells with a given volumetric energy density in order to meet the demands of the tool/device it is intended to power, Gaben teaching the parameter is a known parameter to optimize and teaches a range overlapping with the claimed range (P68) such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the range itself (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara as modified by Haino teaches heat blocking layer 6 includes an insulating layer 8 (“a protective member”) which covers at least a portion of the second fire-extinguishing body (P29) (alternatively; substrate 9 reads on the claimed protective member as well as taught by Haino) (P29-33).
Regarding claim 13, Kurihara teaches wherein the first plurality of battery cells comprises four cylindrical-shaped battery cells. Thus, Kurihara does not explicitly teach five or more cylindrical-shaped battery cells; however, the addition of more cells to meet voltage and/or current requirements is well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching each battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the construct of Kurihara with any number of cells to meet required voltage and/or current requirements of the battery apparatus as would be immediately known to one skilled in the art, with both Suzuki and Haino teaching it is a known technique and construct to provide a battery holder having a first plurality of cells, the first plurality of cells numbering greater than five (Suzuki: Fig 3; Haino: Figs. 1-3).
11. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshiba et al. (US 2014/0370363).
Regarding claim 22, Kurihara fails to disclose the battery apparatus further including a first slot in the casing facing a second slot in the casing 9, wherein a first end of the insulating plate 11 modified to modified to have the at least one fire-extinguishing agent of Suzuki (“the first fire-extinguishing body”) is mounted in the first slot and a second end thereof is mounted in the second slot as claimed.
The claimed feature is drawn to a construct of how to hold/maintain the modified insulating plate 11 within the casing 9 of Kurihara. In the same field of endeavor, Oshiba teaches analogous art of an energy storage apparatus in which it is a known technique to provide a first groove 133a (“first slot’) in support portion 133 in the case main body 100 facing a second groove 133a (“second slot”) in support portions 133 in the case main body 100, with an analogous partition plate 140 having heat insulating properties (P73) inserted therein such that a first end of the partition plate 140 is mounted in the first groove 133a (“first slot”) and a second end of the partition plate 140 is mounted in the second groove 133a (“second slot”) (see Figs. 1-3, 6-7, 8-9; P55-116). Truncated Fig. 3 and Fig. 9 of Oshiba are reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image1.png
259
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
795
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the case 9 of Kurihara with first and second grooves 133a (“first and second slots”) on opposite ends thereof with modified insulation plate 11 (“first fire-extinguishing body”) having first and second ends mounted respectively in the first and second grooves 133a (“first and second slots”) given the technique and construct are taught by Oshiba and provide the predictable result of a manner in which to stably mount the modified insulation plate 11 (“first fire-extinguishing body”) that provides for a detachable arrangement such that it can be removed as needed (P116).
12. Claim 27 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (WO 2019/208219) (using US 2021/0159553 family member as a translation and copy thereof) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0248157) and Haino et al. (WO 2019/021881) (using EP 3,660,945 family member as a translation and copy thereof) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US 2014/0127554) and Park et al. (US 2020/0006728).
Regarding claim 27, please see the rejection of claim 27 above, entirely incorporated here and not repeated. To further the Examiner’s position of the size/shape of the first cell holder and control circuit board, and thus the corresponding second fire-extinguishing body, being a matter of obvious design choice, the following references are cited that teach the following:
Fukuda teaches analogous art of a battery pack including a circuit board 103 and that because the circuit board costs much compared to the battery, a small circuit board is useful for cost reduction (P9, 14), and moreover, the use thereof allows for the overall battery pack to be small and economical (P17-18).
Park teaches the shape and size of a module case for holding a plurality of cells is not limited and is appropriately selected depending on the type and number of battery cells housed in the inner space (P15).
Therefore, it is considered an obvious expedient to determine an appropriate size, including length of the circuit board, and thus corresponding second fire-extinguishing body, in view of the teachings of Fukuda, and to specifically provide a small circuit board given this is useful for cost reduction as well as allowing the overall battery pack to be small (P17-18). It is further considered an obvious expedient to determine an appropriate size, including the length of the first cell holder, on the basis of the number of battery cells to be housed (P15) in order to provide the predictable results of overall voltage and/or current achieved by the number of cells utilized. Thus, the prior art demonstrates that the shape and size of the circuit board, and thus corresponding second fire-extinguishing body, as well as the first cell holder are adjustable parameters based on design choice, wherein arriving at the circuit board being small such that it and its corresponding second-fire-extinguishing body have a length less than that of the length of the first cell holder is considered routine optimization.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 with respect to the maintained prior art rejection above have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
561
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
138
651
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response: The purpose of the heat blocking layer 6 of Haino is taught as preventing the elements on the opposite side of the circuit board from not being damaged by high-temperature exhaust gas from the battery block to ensure a high level of safety (abstract; P4-5; entire disclosure relied upon). Hot gas exiting a battery cell under thermal runaway conditions may exceed 500 °C (=932 °F) (P21 of Haino). Accordingly, this hot gas will intrinsically and naturally rise upward from the venting cells and impinge upon the circuit board 4 located above the cells regardless of the specific disposition of the exhaust valves of the battery cells. This is discussed within Haino in regard to how a battery block in an upper row can be damaged from a battery discharging high-temperature exhaust gas from a battery block in a lower row (P4, 36). The invention of Haino is aimed at protecting the circuit board from exhaust gas coming from battery cells existing below the circuit board, wherein Haino does not require or state anything about the effect only being achieved when the safety valves are in the specific orientation in which they directly face the bottom of the circuit board. To this end, the safety valves of Haino are taught as being on exhaust-side end surface 1A, some of which point downward and away from the circuit board (see Fig. 3). Thus, the advantageous effect of protecting the circuit board from the hot gas exiting a cell pointing in the entirely opposite direction from the circuit board is still achieved in the taught construct of Haino, even though the exhaust valve does not directly face the circuit board given the hot gas will naturally rise upward (P4).
Accordingly, the advantage described and achieved by the heat blocking layer 6 of Haino to protect the circuit board components on the opposite side thereof from the hot gas venting from the cells will be achieved regardless of the orientation of the exhaust valves on the cells. Therefore, it is concluded one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to place the heat blocking layer 6 of Haino underneath of the circuit board 4 (i.e., in the same location of Haino) to achieve the effect of protecting the circuit board components on the opposite side thereof from the hot gas venting from the cells regardless of the orientation of the exhaust valves on the cells.
Moreover, it is noted that in extreme situations such as bursting/exploding cells due to dysfunctional safety valves or under conditions and/or an environment that rapidly places the cells in a high temperature and/or high pressure situation in which the safety valve cannot vent fast enough to prevent explosion/bursting, the hot gases may exit the cells at other locations other than the designated safety valves. Accordingly, in such a scenario, the placement of the heat blocking layer 6 of Haino to protect the circuit board components on the opposite side thereof from the hot gas of the cells would also be achieved in such extreme situations where the cells burst/explode and/or do not vent only from the safety valves.
Thus, the argument above is not considered persuasive to overcome the rejection of record which is maintained. All comments are respectfully submitted.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
656
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In response: Haino’s heat blocking layer 6 within the casing 9 and having a molten layer 7 that includes a material provide a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P28) (i.e., “the second fire-extinguishing body”) does not require modification to meet the limitation claimed. For any dimension selected, the length of Haino’s heat blocking layer 6 that exists within the casing 9 and has a molten layer 7 that includes a material provide a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P28) (“the second fire-extinguishing body”) has
has a length less than a length of the analogous first cell holder 2 on which the second fire-extinguishing body is mounted (see Figs. 2-3). Accordingly, the specific design construct claimed is taught by Haino. It is noted that “a length” is emphasized by way of italicizes given the claim does not define the claimed lengths respect to any other entity relative to a given direction such that multiple interpretations of what the claimed “lengths” may constitute exist. It appears that in any direction selected, the feature is met. Please see the further updated rejections of record and alternative rejections made against the subject matter pertaining to claim 27 as newly added.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Syed et al. (US 2016/0336627) teaches it is a known technique to provide either an encapsulating intumescent layer over a substrate (or layers on each surface thereof) that may be a circuit board (P7, 22; entire disclosure), the intumescent layer(s)/encapsulating construct comprising a at least one fire-extinguishing agent that provides a negative-catalyst effect with respect to combustion (P24).
Takano et al. (US 2020/0067045) teaches a second plate 50 that may be a resin plate that contains a filler or additive to improve heat resistance, flame resistance, or other properties (P59-60) and is underneath the circuit component of a battery apparatus.
Tada et al. (US 2020/0358063) teaches analogous art of a battery pack with a partition plate made of mica 30 that is held in the housing, and that it is a known technique to provide a slot by way of ribs 34 that hold the mica plate in place (see Fig. 3 reproduced below; entire disclosure):
PNG
media_image6.png
498
742
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Blaha et al. (US 2018/0198100) teaches analogous art of a battery and circuit board and that in many instances there is a need to keep the size of the circuit board as small as possible (P3).
Conclusion
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights