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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 03/17/2026:
Claims 1, 4, and 8-19 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 8, 18, and 19 have been amended. Claim 19 stands withdrawn.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been overcome in light of the amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 10, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1 and 18 have been fully considered. The objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 1 and 18.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Page 10, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. Some of the rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, and some have been repeated below as they do not appear to be addressed.
For example, “the surface” is recited a couple times in claims 1 and 18 instead of “the surface of the battery cell”. The recitation of “the surface” was previously recited to cause a lack of antecedent basis in the rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 of the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “the first surface” in line 4. However, the claim should recite “the first surface of the battery cell” to provide consistency to the way the surfaces of the battery cell are recited throughout the claims.
Claim 10 recites “the second surface” in line 4. However, the claim should recite “the second surface of the battery cell” to provide consistency to the way the surfaces of the battery cell are recited throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, and thus claims 4 and 8-17, and 18 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.
Firstly, Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitation "the surface" in lines 7, 12-13, and 16 of claim 1 and lines 10, 15-16, and 19 of claim 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“The surface” is being interpreted to mean “the surface of the battery cell” as recited in lines 5-6 and 9-10 of claim 1 and lines 7-8 and 11-12 of claim 18 (and recited by several dependent claims).
Due to claims 4 and 8-17 depending from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Secondly, Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitations “a battery cell, the battery cell having a surface provided with two electrode terminals” and "the insulating layer comprising a first insulating layer disposed on the surface of the battery cell and configured to separate the surface of the battery cell from the cover, the first insulating layer being formed in a groove on a shell of the battery cell such that the first insulating layer and the shell are an integral structure, the first insulating layer being disposed in a region between the two electrode terminals on the surface".
As written, these two claims set forth that the battery cell has a surface provided with two electrode terminals and an insulating layer that comprises a first insulating layer disposed on the surface of the battery cell .
However, these two claims go onto recite that the first insulating layer is “formed in a groove on a shell of the battery cell such that the first insulating layer and the shell are an integral structure”.
These limitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “surface of the battery cell” is the surface of the claimed “shell of the battery cell”.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim such that it recites a battery cell having a shell and that the shell of the battery cell includes the surface of the battery cell which is provided with two electrode terminals.
Due to claims 4 and 8-17 depending from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites (1) “for a vehicle” and (2) “in an installed orientation of the battery within the vehicle, the cover is positioned above the accommodating chamber portion of the box and forms at least a portion of a floor panel of the vehicle.”
Regarding limitation (1), claim 1 is drawn to “a battery”.
A vehicle is not positively recited within claim 1, only a battery that is used “for a vehicle”. In comparison, claim 18 recites “an electric vehicle, comprising: a battery”, therefore, an electric vehicle is positively recited. Further, each of the claims dependent upon claim 1 further recite “the battery”, therefore, the claim is drawn to the battery recited in claim 1, not a vehicle.
For this reason, the Examiner is interpreting claim 1 to be drawn to a battery wherein the recitation of limitation (1) is intended-use language.
Furthermore, due to this interpretation of limitation (1), limitation (2) is being interpreted to require that the battery could be oriented such that the cover is positioned above the accommodating chamber portion of the box in an installed orientation of the battery within the vehicle, and is capable of forming/being a portion of a floor panel of a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome, and based upon the Examiner’s interpretation in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Claims 1, 4, and 1, 4, and 8-18 would be allowed.
Based upon the amendments to claims 1 and 18 and the interpretation set forth by the Examiner above, the claims set forth a battery cell having a shell, the shell of the battery cell includes a surface of the battery cell, the surface of the battery cell is provided with two electrode terminals, the insulating layer comprises a first insulating layer disposed on the surface of the battery cell and configured to separate the surface of the battery cell from the cover, the first insulating layer is formed in a groove on the surface of the battery cell of the shell of the battery cell such that the first insulating layer and the shell are an integral structure, and the first insulating layer being disposed in a region between the two electrode terminals on the surface. The claims further set forth wherein a height of the insulating layer and/or of a structural adhesive used to bond the surface to the cover is greater than a height of at least one electrode terminal of the two electrode terminals after electrical connection, such that a gap is provided between the at least one electrode terminal and the cover after the surface is fixed to the cover.
Previously cited Tang discloses a battery, comprising: a battery cell (plurality of battery cells 2 in Figs. 1 and 5, P45-46, 61), a surface of the battery cell being provided with an electrode terminal (P51); and a box (see Fig. 1), a portion of the box forming an accommodating chamber having an opening (lower box body 1 with second body portion 11 in Fig. 1, P61); wherein the battery cell is accommodated in the accommodating chamber (see Fig. 1, P61), and the surface of the battery cell is configured to be facing the cover covering the opening (Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed invention without the indefiniteness caused by the word “directly”) and fixedly connected to a cover covering the opening (upper case cover 3 is connected to the battery cells through first colloid 4 in Fig. 1, and, as can be seen in Fig. 1, the surface of the batteries wherein the electrode terminals sit face the cover 3, P47, 61).
Tang discloses a connecting region between the surface and the cover includes an insulating layer (first colloid 4 can be made of an insulating material in Fig. 1, P47).
However, as seen in Fig. 1 of Tang, the insulating layer (first colloid 4) of Tang is not disposed in a region between the two electrode terminals on the surface of the battery cell. Further, Tang does not disclose a “groove” on the surface of the battery cell (of the shell/housing of the battery cell) in which the insulating layer (first colloid 4) is laid within.
Further search and consideration was performed, however, no art has been found to teach an insulating layer including a first insulating layer disposed in a groove on a surface of a battery cell of a shell of the battery cell, wherein the first insulating layer is disposed such that it is between two electrode terminals on the surface of the battery cell, and wherein a height of the insulating layer and/or of a structural adhesive used to bond the surface to the cover is greater than a height of at least one electrode terminal of the two electrode terminals after electrical connection, such that a gap is provided between the at least one electrode terminal and the cover after the surface is fixed to the cover.
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 Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights