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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Remarks
Claims 1 have been amended, claims 2-3 are as previously presented. Claims 1-3 are currently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP2013246990A) and in view of Chen (WO2021107305A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa discloses a power storage device comprising: a power storage stack (9) including a plurality of power storage cells (1) aligned in an alignment direction [0028, fig. 1-4, Nishikawa]; an accommodation case (6) that has a bottom wall portion (4) and accommodates the power storage stack [0039, fig. 2, Nishikawa]; and an adhesive layer that has thermal conductivity and is disposed on the bottom wall portion [0082, Nishikawa discloses that the elastic plate portion (“bottom wall portion”) may be fixed to the battery cells via an adhesive]. The examiner asserts, that an adhesive would possess “thermal conductivity”, regardless of low or high thermal conductivity, this use of an adhesive would still possess “thermal conductivity”]. Moreover because the bottom wall portion 4 incorporates a cooling means it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time filing to use a thermally conductive adhesive to maximize cooling between cells (1) and cooling means (3) (fig. 2). The bottom wall portion (4) including a fixed portion (4X) where the power storage stack is fixed with the adhesive layer [0082, Nishikawa discloses attaching the contact portion of the elastic plate (“bottom wall portion”) to the cell body], a lower wall portion (4Y) located at a position lower in level than the fixed portion (4X) [fig. 2, 6, 9, 11, Nishikawa], and a connecting portion (4 extending between 4X and 4Y) that interconnects the fixed portion and the lower wall portion [fig. 2, 9, 11, Nishikawa], the connecting portion is arranged to overlap in a vertical direction with a surface of at least one of the plurality of power storage cells that is perpendicular to the arrangement direction [fig. 2, 9, 11, Nishikawa].
PNG
media_image1.png
655
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure. 11, Nishikawa
Nishikawa is explicitly silent to the adhesive layer including a protruding portion that protrudes from the fixed portion to the connecting portion and is not in contact with a bottom surface of the storage cell.
However, Chen discloses a thermally conductive resin (“adhesive layer”) with higher than thermal conductivity than general adhesives being disposed between the battery cells and a bottom wall portion (33) [0053-0058, fig. 3-5, Chen]. Chen further teaches that thermally conductive resin has a viscosity and spreads when the weight of the cells is placed upon them [0064, Chen].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Nishikawa such that the adhesive used was the thermally conductive resin adhesive disclosed by Chen. Doing so would allow for higher thermal conductivity than normal adhesives and the adhesive would spread out as the cells was being placed upon it [0064, Chen]. One would also find it obvious to not use enough adhesive to ensure the adhesive covers the entire surface area of the fixed portions 1X/4X (fig. 11) because too little adhesive will result in poor adhesion and reduced thermal conductivity [0064, Chen]
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this spreading out taught by Chen ([0064]) will result in the adhesive spreading to the connecting portion (4D). The adhesive that spreads to the connecting portion would read on an “adhesive layer including a protruding portion that protrudes from the fixed portion and does not touch the cell”. It is within the skill of the artisan to control the amount of adhesive to provide enough adhesion while limiting excessive weight and waste.
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa as modified above discloses the power storage device, wherein the fixed portion includes a first portion (4Xd) where the power storage stack has one side fixed in an intersecting direction intersecting the alignment direction [fig. 11-12, Nishikawa], a second portion (4Xd) where the power storage stack has the other side fixed in the intersecting direction [fig. 11-12, Nishikawa], and a recess (4Yd) provided between the first portion and the second portion [fig. 11-12, Nishikawa].
Regarding claim 3, Nishikawa as modified above discloses the power storage device, further comprising a cooler (23, 230, 330) that is disposed outside the accommodation case and cools the power storage stack [fig. 1, 37 and 39, Nishikawa], wherein the cooler includes a cooling portion having a cooling channel (13, 203) through which a cooling medium passes [0004, Nishikawa], and the cooling portion is disposed in thermal contact with a back surface of the fixed portion [0019, 0046, 0049, figs. 6-25, Nishikawa discloses and depicts that the cooling plate is connected to the back side of the elastic plate (includes “fixing portion” as discussed above). This reads on the applicants claim limitations].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant argues that Nishikawa and Chen fail to teach of the overlapping of the battery cells and connecting portion in a vertical direction. The examiner respectfully disagrees, see rejection of claim 1 and annotation of fig. 11 (Nishikawa) above for details.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
253
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments in regards to the fence members are not moot and they are not present in the rejection of claim 1. While fence members may be used in the secondary Chen, they are not incorporated into the primary Nishikawa. Chen is solely relied upon for its teachings on thermally conductive adhesives and its displacement. The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive as the features are not present in the rejection and not required by the claim limitation.
Additionally, the examiner is currently not persuaded by the applicant’s condensation arguments. Neither Nishikawa or Chen discuss the water condensation feature asserted by the applicant and as it is not clear exactly where or how this water is getting between the adhesive layer and bottom of the cell. An adhesive layer will fill in any gaps between the cell and the fixing portion, this should help prevent water from getting be between the adhesive layer and bottom of the cell. It is unclear how water would be in the area surrounding the connecting member 8. This feature is at the top of the cell and not the bottom so it is unclear how water condensates here. The examiner noted the embodiments of figures 2, 9, and 11. The embodiments in figures 2 and 9 would not collect any water as they run off the edge. In regards to the embodiment in figure 11, if one is concerned about the accumulation of water in (4Y) then they would find it obvious to change the shape such that water would not collect here. Finally, the examiner does not find the condensation argument to be persuasive as it does not over come the use of Nishikawa as a primary reference or overcome the use of Chen.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights