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 .
This office action addresses pending claims 1, 3-6, and 8-16. Claims 1 and 8-11 were amended in the response filed 7/6/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/6/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final rejection on 11/18/2025 and before the non-final office action on 4/7/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe (JP 2020-002979, see Applicant supplied machine translation) in view of Han (US 2016/0308186), Takahata et al. (JP 2017-084550, see Applicant supplied machine translation), and Park et al. (US 2021/0194041, which was effectively filed 12/20/2019).
Regarding claim 1, Hasebe discloses a heat insulating sheet (separator) or a heat insulating layer comprising a resin and expandable graphite ([0001]). In an embodiment, the heat insulating material includes a three layer structure, where the two outer layers 11,13 comprise the resin and graphite and the middle layer is an intermediate layer 12 ([0010], [0034], Fig 1). The resin can be synthetic rubber, including acrylic, urethane, silicone, polystyrene, latex ([0016]); and therefore the outer layers are considered to be elastomer layers. The material of the intermediate layer can be a urethane foam, polyethylene foam, polypropylene ([0021]); therefore the intermediate layer is a plastic foam.
While Hasebe teaches that the heat insulating sheet is used with batteries and battery modules and in electric vehicles ([0001]-[0002]), Hasebe does not explicitly disclose a power supply device comprising: a battery block including a plurality of battery cells stacked in a thickness with a separator interposed between the plurality of battery cells; a pair of end plates disposed on both end surfaces of the battery block; and a binding bar connected to the pair of end plates and configured to fix the battery block in a pressurized state via the end plates.
Han discloses a battery module 100 (battery block) including a plurality of battery cells 10 stacked in a stacking direction with end plates 60 disposed at the ends in the stacking direction (abstract, Fig 1). Spacers 50 (separator) are disposed between adjacent battery cells ([0055]), and said spacers absorb pressure between cells while going under elastic deformation ([0056]-[0058]) as well as provide heat-dissipating structures ([0065]). End plates 60 are coupled to each other through the side plates 40 (binding bars) ([0050], Fig 1). Because the spacers 50 absorb pressure between the battery cells ([0055]) and because the side plates 40 are fixed to the end plates, the side plates 40 (binding bars) have to fix the battery module in a pressurized state via the end plates in order for the spacers to absorb the pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat insulating sheets of Hasebe in a battery module as taught by Han for the purpose of absorbing pressure and dissipating heat of the battery cells.
However, modified Hasebe does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastomer layer comprises a plurality of parallel ridges and a plurality of parallel grooves on a surface thereof, and wherein the elastomer layer includes a comb-teeth-shaped cross-sectional shape by alternately disposing the plurality of rows of parallel ridges and the plurality of rows of parallel grooves on the surface of a plate-shaped part, the surface facing each of the plurality of battery cells.
Takahata discloses a battery pack including a plurality of batteries 20 arranged in a predetermined direction [stack], and spacers 40 interposed between the batteries 20 (abstract). The spacers have plural protrusions 41 [parallel ridges] formed on a spacer body 42 that are in contact with the side wall 51 of batteries (abstract). The protrusions 41 may be formed on both surfaces of the spacer, and the protrusions have a height H, and, as an example is about 1 to 30 mm ([0024]). As seen in Figures 2-4, the spacers 40 with protrusions 41 create a comb-teeth-shaped cross-sectional shape by alternately disposing a plurality of rows of parallel ridges (protrusions) and a plurality of rows of parallel grooves. Takahata teaches the protrusions suppress increase of the resistance of the battery (abstract).
Takahata further teaches that the spring constant of the spacer can be adjusted by the widths (W1) [width of parallel ridge] and the intervals (W2) of the protrusions 41 ([0026]). The width of the protrusions W1 and widths of the grooves W2 therebetween are provided in Table 1, where W1 ranges from 2-5 mm, and W2 ranges from 2-6 mm. As seen by the third column of Table 1, the spring constant can be increased as the W1 between the projections is increased and as the W2 between the projection is decreased ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protrusions formed on the side(s) of the spacer (which create a comb-teeth-shaped cross-sectional shape by alternately disposing the plurality of rows of parallel ridges) as taught by Takahata with the outer elastomer layers of the heat insulating sheet of Hasebe for the purpose of suppressing increase of the resistance of the battery.
However, modified Hasebe does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastomer layer (outer layers 11,13) is a non-foamed synthetic rubber.
Park discloses a pressure regulation system for an energy storage device 100 including a plurality of lithium ion cells 102 ([0021]). A spring member is positioned between each of the adjacent cells ([0021], Fig 1). The spring member/layer may be a polymeric material or an elastic material ([0024]). The spring layer may contain silicone, polyolefin (such as polyethylene and polypropylene), cross-linked polyolefin, polyester, polyurethane, EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer) rubber, natural rubber, or synthetic rubber. The spring layer should exhibit good recovery or spring back behavior ([0024]). Because Park alternatively describes the use of foams ([0025]), Park therefore reasonably suggests the spring layer as being a foam or as being one of the aforementioned materials that is non-foamed. In addition, Park teaches that in some embodiments, the spring layer may be a non-porous pad, and may be a solid EPDM rubber piece [synthetic rubber] ([0027]). Because Park teaches the spring layer can be a non-porous pad, Park reasonably suggests the material as non-foamed because there are no pores.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a non-foamed rubber synthetic rubber [non-porous pad of solid EPDM rubber] as taught and suggested by Park with the outer elastomer layers of Hasebe for the purpose of providing the structure that exhibits good recovery or spring back behavior (Park at [0024]).
With regards to the limitation of “wherein in a region where an expansion of the battery cell becomes large and the plastic foam layer exceeds an elastic limit thereof, the elastomer layer elastically deforms to absorb the expansion of the battery cell”, Hasebe teaches a heat insulating sheet ([0001]), and teaches that the intermediate layer 12 can have impact resistance, recoverability, and resilience ([0022]) thereby the intermediate layer 12 [plastic foam layer] compresses before the outer layers 11,13. Therefore, the combination reasonably suggests that the outer layers 11,13 elastically deform to absorb the expansion of the battery cells after the intermediate layer 12 [plastic layer] deforms and the elastic limit is exceeded.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hasebe teaches that the resin (outer elastomer layers) can be synthetic rubber, including acrylic, urethane, silicone, polystyrene, latex ([0016]). Additionally, Park teaches that the spring layer can be a solid EPDM rubber piece [an ethylene propylene diene rubber] ([0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the EPDM rubber material of the spring layer of Park with the outer elastomer layer of Hasebe for the purpose of providing the structure that exhibits good recovery or spring back behavior (Park at [0024]).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Hasebe teaches that the intermediate layer can be a foam including urethane foam, polyethylene foam, polypropylene ([0021]), modified Hasebe does not explicitly disclose whether the foam layer is (claim 4) open-cell or (claim 5) closed-cell plastic foam.
Park discloses a pressure regulation system for an energy storage device 100 including a plurality of lithium ion cells 102 ([0021]). A spring member is positioned between each of the adjacent cells ([0021], Fig 1). The spring member/layer can be foam of either an open pore or closed pore type foam ([0025]), and the foam may comprise silicone foam, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) foam, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) foam, crosslinked polyethylene (PE) foam, polypropylene (PP) foam, natural rubber foam, polyester foam, polyurethane foam, neoprene, PVC/NBR (polyvinyl chloride/nitrile butyl rubber), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), EPDM rubber foam, or latex foam ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either an open pore or closed pore foam as taught by Park with the intermediate foam layer of Hasebe for the purpose of providing the structure that exhibits good recovery or spring back behavior (Park at [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hasebe teaches that the plastic foam layer can be a urethane foam ([0021]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahata further teaches that the plurality of protrusions 41 have a predetermined width formed at predetermined intervals ([0023],[0025]). The width of the protrusions W1 and widths of the grooves W2 therebetween are provided in Table 1, where W1 ranges from 2-5 mm, and W2 ranges from 2-6 mm. Therefore, a lateral width of the parallel ridges and an opening width of the parallel grooves are in a range from 1 mm to 20 mm, inclusive.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahata further teaches that the plurality of protrusions 41 have a height H, and, as an example is about 1 to 30 mm ([0024]). Thus, Takahata teaches an overlapping range of the claimed height of 0.1 mm to 1 mm, and therefore renders obvious the limitations.
Further, as the thickness of the protrusion affects the amount of battery active materials within a given volume (energy density), with an increased protrusion thickness decreasing the amount of space available for battery active materials within a given volume, the precise protrusion thickness would have been considered a result effective variable. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the protrusions (including within a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm, inclusive) of modified Hasebe for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between suppressing battery resistance increasing and increased battery active material.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Takahata further teaches that the plurality of protrusions 41 have a predetermined width formed at predetermined intervals ([0023],[0025]). The width of the protrusions W1 and widths of the grooves W2 therebetween are provided in Table 1, where W1 ranges from 2-5 mm, and W2 ranges from 2-6 mm. All of the examples provided in Table 1 have a W1/W2 ratio between 0.1 and 10, see below table.
W1
W2
W1/W2
2
6
0.33
3
6
0.50
3
4
0.75
5
6
0.83
5
4
1.25
5
2
2.50
Regarding claim 11, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Hasebe discloses batteries, Hasebe does not explicitly disclose the inner details of the batteries, nor wherein each of the plurality of battery cells includes an electrode that is a plate-shaped electrode in which positive electrode layer and negative electrode layer extending in a band shape are spirally wound and pressed into a planar shape, and the elastomer layer of the separator includes the parallel ridges and the parallel grooves extend in a width direction of the positive electrode layer and negative electrode layer that are in a band shape.
Takahata further teaches that the batteries 20 have an electrode group 30 disposed therein which is configured by laminating the positive electrode plate 31 and the negative electrode plate 32 with the separator 33 interposed therebetween and further winding the electrode plate 30 ([0031]). As seen in Figure 3, the electrode group is wound and pressed into a planar shape, and the protrusions 41 of the spacer 40 extend in a width direction of the positive and negative electrode plates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the arrangement of the electrode group inside the battery as well as the alignment of the protrusions of the spacer as taught by Takahata for the purpose of providing an arrangement that suppresses increase of the resistance of the battery.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hasebe teaches an embodiment where the heat insulating sheet has a three-layer structure (two outer layers 11,13 and intermediate layer 12) in which the elastomer layers are stacked on both surfaces of the plastic foam layer, the plurality of the elastomer layers each being the elastomer layer (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hasebe teaches that batteries can be used in an electric vehicle or hybrid car for a means of transport ([0002]). As an electric vehicle or hybrid car being powered by a battery for a means of transport would need a motor, vehicle body, and wheels driven by the motor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the battery module in an electric vehicle or hybrid car having a motor, vehicle body, and wheels in order to power the car as a means of transport.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hasebe discloses that the intermediate layer 12 (plastic foam layer) has a thickness of 0.5 to 3 mm ([0021]-[0022]; the translation does not provide the units, however the original document lists the unit as mm). Therefore, Hasebe discloses a thickness range (0.5-3 mm) of the intermediate layer 12 (plastic foam layer) entirely within the claimed range of 0.2 mm to 7 mm.
However, modified Hasebe does not explicitly disclose the apparent density of the intermediate layer (plastic foam layer) in a range from 150 kg/m3 to 750 kg/m3.
Park teaches that that foam layers (including polyethylene, polypropylene and polyurethane foam which are taught by Hasebe at [0021]) can have densities between 0.05 g/cc to about 1 g/cc [50 kg/m3 to 1,000 kg/m3], and preferably about 0.1 g/cc to about 0.55 g/cc [100 kg/m3 to 550 kg/m3] ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and use a foam having a density in the range of 150-750 kg/m3 as taught by Park in the intermediate layer (plastic foam layer) of Hasebe for the purpose of providing the structure that exhibits good recovery or spring back behavior (Park at [0024]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the density of the intermediate layer (plastic foam layer) [including in the range of 150 kg/m3 to 750 kg/m3] of Hasebe to obtain the desired balance between good recovery, spring back behavior, and pressure within the housing (Park at [0024], [0031], Fig 3).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe (JP 2020-002979, see Applicant supplied machine translation) in view of Han (US 2016/0308186), Takahata et al. (JP 2017-084550, see Applicant supplied machine translation), and Park et al. (US 2021/0194041, which was effectively filed 12/20/2019), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiwara et al. (WO 2018/101079).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Hasebe teaches an embodiment where the heat insulating sheet has a three-layer structure (two outer layers 11,13 and intermediate layer 12) in which the elastomer layers are stacked on both surfaces of the plastic foam layer (Fig 1), Hasebe does not explicitly disclose wherein the separator includes a two-layer structure of the elastomer layer and the plastic foam layer.
Fujiwara discloses a cell pack 10 including a plurality of secondary cells and a plurality of spacers interposed between the secondary cells (abstract). The spacers 22,27 include a core member 23,28 and elastic members 24,29 that are attached to the core member (Fig 1). As seen in Figure 1, the spacers 22 between two adjacent cells has two elastic members, with one elastic member on each side of the core 23, where the spacers 27 disposed at the ends have one elastic member that is between the core and the cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a two-layer structure of the spacer as taught by Fujiwara with the heat insulating sheet of Hasebe for the purpose of a heat insulating sheet disposed at the end plate to have one surface that faces the battery cells.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe (JP 2020-002979, see Applicant supplied machine translation) in view of Han (US 2016/0308186), Takahata et al. (JP 2017-084550, see Applicant supplied machine translation), and Park et al. (US 2021/0194041, which was effectively filed 12/20/2019), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman et al. (US 2018/0316071).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hasebe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hasebe teaches that batteries can be used in an electric vehicle or hybrid car for a means of transport ([0002]). However, Hasebe does not explicitly disclose the battery within a power storage device having the battery (power supply device) and a power supply controller that controls charging and discharging to the power supply device, wherein the power supply controller enables charging to the secondary battery cell by electric power from an outside, and performs control to charge the secondary battery cell.
Newman discloses a vehicle 100 including power source 208A,B (comprising one or more power cells/batteries) ([0019]). The power source 208 includes a charge controller 224 that may be configured to determine charge levels of the power source 208, control a rate at which charge is drawn from the power source 208 (controls discharging), control a rate at which charge is added to the power source 208 (controls charging, and enables charging by electric power from an outside), and/or monitor a health of the power source 208 (e.g., one or more cells, portions, etc.) ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charge controller 224 of the power source of Newman with the battery module of modified Hasebe for the purpose of controlling the charge and discharge of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine the heat insulating sheet of Hasebe with the comb-teeth-shaped protrusions of Takahata, and further to substitute the material of the outer layers with a non-foamed solid EPDM rubber as taught by Park. Applicant argues that Hasebe lacks the comb-teeth shape elastomer layers or a staged expansion absorption mechanism, and the protrusions of Takahata are directed towards a spring constant which is fundamentally different from a stacked structure utilizing adjacent layers with different elastic limits.
This is not considered persuasive. While Hasebe teaches a heat insulating sheet ([0001]), and teaches that the intermediate layer 12 can have impact resistance, recoverability, and resilience ([0022]) thereby the intermediate layer 12 [plastic foam layer] compresses before the outer layers 11,13 and therefore the staged expansion absorption mechanism. However, Hasebe does not explicitly disclose a comb-teeth-shaped in the [outer] elastomer layer.
Takahata discloses spacers 40 having plural protrusions 41 [parallel ridges] formed on a spacer body 42 that are in contact with the side wall 51 of batteries (abstract), that have a comb-shape (Figs 2-4). Because Takahata teaches the protrusions suppress increase of the resistance of the battery (abstract), Takahata provides a motivation for the combination because the protrusions contact the batteries. While Applicant alleges that a spring constant is fundamentally different from elastic limits, this is not considered persuasive because a spring constant relates to a force applied when compressed.
Applicant argues that Park merely describes a solid rubber pad as an alternative for a pressure regulator layer, without any suggestion of forming it into a comb-teeth shape to cooperate with an adjacent foam layer.
This is not considered persuasive. Park is not relied upon to teach the comb-teeth shape, already taught by Takahata. Instead, Park is relied upon to teach a non-foamed synthetic rubber as a material for that provides a good recovery or spring back behavior ([0024])
Because Park teaches overlapping materials as that of the outer layers of Hasebe (e.g., silicon, polyolefin, polyester, polyurethane, rubber; Park at [0024], Hasebe at [0016]), the materials are relevant for the outer layers of Hasebe.
In addition, because Takahata teaches that the spacer 40 [having the comb-teeth shape] can be made of a material such as a resin material ([0024]), Takahata teaches that such materials can be formed to have comb-teeth shapes.
Applicant argues that combining Hasebe, Park, and Takahata would alter the principles of operation of Hasebe. Specifically arguing that incorporating the rigid, solid rubber material of Park to form the structural protrusions of Takahata on the outer layers of Hasebe’s heat insulating sheet would be incompatible with cushioning and heating insulation functions of Hasebe’s intermediate foam layer. Applicant further argues that such a modification would undermine the fundamental purpose of Hasebe’s design, render it inoperable for its intended purpose, and change the principle of operation.
This is not considered persuasive. Firstly, applicant does not provide any evidence of the incompatibility. Argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary (MPEP 2145(I)).
Secondly, applicant has not argued how the combination (any specific combination) undermines the purpose of Hasebe’s design, nor renders it inoperable for its intended purpose, nor change the principle of operation. Applicant merely makes statements.
Hasebe teaches that the intermediate layer 12 can have impact resistance, recoverability, and resilience ([0022]) thereby the intermediate layer 12 [plastic foam layer] compresses before the outer layers 11,13. Therefore, the combination with a rigid, solid rubber material as an outer layer does not change that the intermediate layer 12 compresses before the outer layers intermediate layer. Therefore, the combination does not undermine the fundamental purpose of Hasebe’s design, render it inoperable for its intended purpose, nor change the principle of operation.
Applicant argues that the combination of references fail to teach or suggest the specific combination of elements and their synergistic interaction as recited in amended claim 1.
While Applicant alleges a synergistic interaction, Applicant has not provided any data of the alleged synergy. Applicant has merely stated that there is a synergistic interaction. Argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary (MPEP 2145(I)). Therefore, the arguments that the combination has a synergy that is not recognized by the prior art is not considered persuasive.
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 JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights