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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action regarding Application Ser. No. 17/909,935 to Ogishima et al. filed, 09/07/2022, assigned to Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan, and published as U.S. PG Publication 2024/0297386; published 09/05/2024, is in response to applicant's request of continued examination, RCE, and claims amendment filed 12/17/2025. Applicant's response has been fully considered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
In the after-final action response filed 11/25/2025 applicant has amended the claims of the application. The status of the claims as last filed on 11/25/2025 stand as follows:
Currently amended 1, 3-4
Canceled 2
4.3 Previously presented 5
Claims 1, 3-5 are currently pending in this application.
Withdrawal of Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 102
The rejection of Claim 1,4, 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (U.S. PG publication 2018/0309103) has been overcome by the amendment of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further consideration the claims are now rejected under 103 over Kobayashi et al. ((U.S. PG publication 2018/0309103).
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office action.
Claim 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0309103)
Regarding claim 1 and 3 Kobayashi discloses a battery pack (Kobayashi Fig. 1, Title, paragraph 0006) comprising a plurality of rectangular secondary batteries (Kobayashi Fig. 1, 2, paragraph 0026), the plurality of battery cells 10 are arranged along the thickness direction X (Kobayashi Fig. 1, paragraph 0027) wherein each rectangular secondary battery comprises: a flat electrode body (Kobayashi Fig. 4) including positive electrode plate 12 and negative electrode plate 14 wound around a winding axis Y with a separator 16 interposed therebetween, wherein the electrode body has a flat portion in which a positive electrode material mixture layer 12a and a negative electrode material mixture layer 14a face each other with the separator 16 interposed therebetween (Kobayashi Fig. 4, paragraph 0030, 0031), and a rectangular battery case 30 accommodating the flat electrode body therein (Kobayashi Fig. 2, paragraph 0026).
The battery case 30 has a long side surface 30W thereof overlapping the flat portion of the electrode body in the thickness direction X (Kobayashi Fig. 2, paragraph 0034), the long side surface 30W extending in a winding axis direction Y and parallel with the winding axis Y of the electrode body 20, and in a height direction Z perpendicular to the winding axis direction Y and the thickness direction X (Kobayashi Fig. 2, paragraph 0027).
Kobayashi discloses a spacer 40, 60, 70 interposed between an adjacent pair of first and second batteries 10 of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries in the thickness direction X, and disposed on the long side surface 30W of the battery case 30 of the first battery 10 (Kobayashi Fig. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8).
The spacer consists of a pair of first pressing portions 42a, 42c (Kobayashi Fig. 5) that are spaced apart from each other in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 4, 5). The pressing portions 42a, 42c press in the thickness direction a pair of end portions of the long side surface 30W (Kobayashi Fig. 5, paragraph 0036). Each of first pressing portion 42a, 42c being elongated in the height direction Z (Kobayashi Fig. 5),
Kobayashi discloses a second pressing portion (unlabeled part of spacer 72) that is intermediate portion interposed between the pair of first pressing portions (on both sides) in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 8), so as to selectively press, in the thickness direction, an intermediate portion between the pair of end portions of the long side surface in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 5, paragraph 0036), the second pressing portion (middle portion of spacer 70 in Fig. 8) being elongated in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 8).
Kobayashi also discloses the second pressing portion can also be defined by a plurality of divided region 64a, 64b, aligned in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 7, paragraph 0052). The height of the pressing portions, i.e. unlabeled horizontal portion of 72 (Kobayashi Fig. 8) and 64a, 64b (Kobayashi Fig. 7), considered equivalent to the second pressing portion, have height that is uniform in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 7, 8).
Kobayashi discloses the second pressing portion (middle portion of spacer 70 in Fig. 8) being elongated in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 8). Kobayashi , however, is silent regarding the length ratio of the length of the second pressing portion (unlabeled middle portion of the spacer 70 of Fig. 8 interposed between the pair of the first pressing portion) to the length between the pair of the first pressing portions spaced apart along the winding axis Y. Kobayashi shows the length of the second pressing portion is shorter than the distance the pair of the first portion (Kobayashi Fig. 8), and the ratio is less than unity and can include the claimed range of being greater than or equal to ½. However, the ratio will depend on the length of the short side and according to the MPEP, “a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art”, (See MPEP 2144.04(IV); and furthermore, the ratio can be optimized by routine experimentation to obtain the optimum pressing force of the battery cells, which would depend on the size of the pressing plates and the restraining band. According to the MPEP, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Kobayashi discloses pressing portion 42b, 62b that is interposed between the pair of first pressing portions 42a, 42c and 62a, 62c in the winding axis direction (Kobayashi Fig. 5, 7) considered equivalent to the third pressing portion recited in claim 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
625
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi Fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
622
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi Fig. 8
PNG
media_image3.png
420
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi Fig. 7
Regarding the height ratio of third pressing member to the first pressing portion of claim 3 Kobayashi discloses a pair of first pressing portions 42a, 42c (Kobayashi Fig. 5) that are spaced apart from each other in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 4, 5), and a third pressing portion 42b that is interposed between the pair of the first pressing portion 42a, 42c in the winding axis Y (Kobayashi Fig. 5). Kobayashi, however, is silent regarding the ratio of the length of the third pressing portion in the height direction to the length of the first pressing portion in the height direction to be less than or equal to ½.. However, as noted above, the ratio can be optimized by routine experimentation to obtain the optimum pressing force of the battery cells, which would depend on the size of the pressing plates and the restraining band. According to the MPEP, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 4 Kobayashi also discloses the second pressing portion can also be defined by a plurality of divided region 64a, 64b, aligned in the winding axis direction Y (Kobayashi Fig. 7, paragraph 0052), and the length of the second pressing portion can be considered as the total length of the plurality of divided regions or portions.
Regarding claim 5 the pair of the first pressing portion and the second pressing portion when viewed in the thickness direction X together form an H-shaped pressing portion (Kobayashi Fig. 8).
Response to Argument
In the response filed on 12/17/2025 applicant requested continued examination of the application. The claims of the application stand as last filed in the after-final response dated 11/25/2025. In the after final response claim 1 has been amended by adding the new limitation of the second pressing portion being elongated in the winding axis direction, "and defined by either a single elongated region or a plurality of divided regions aligned in the winding axis direction". Claim 1 was further amended by adding the new limitation, "wherein a height of the second pressing portion in the height direction is uniform throughout a length of the second pressing portion in the winding axis direction. Claim 1 has also been amended by incorporating the limitation of claim 2, and claim 2 has been canceled. Claim 3 has also been amended and recites as an independent claim including limitations that were where not previously recited in previous dependent claim 3. The dependence of claim 4 is changed to claim.
In the after-final response applicant argues that the reference of Kobayashi et al (U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0309103) does not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1 and 3 (Remarks page 8-9). Examiner notes that the amendment of claims 1 has overcome the previously presented anticipation rejection of the claim under 102 (a)(1) over Kobayashi. Therefore, the previously presented rejection has been withdrawn as noted above in this Office action. Upon further consideration and search the claims are now rejected under 103 over Kobayashi et al.
Applicant argues that the aspects of amended claim 1 cannot be met by Kobayashi or an obvious modification thereof. Applicant by referring to drawings of Kobayashi argues that the pressing portion presses each of a center portion and a pair of end portion of the reaction section in the width direction over the entire length of the reaction section of the electrode body in the vertical direction (Remarks page 10). Applicant also makes a similar argument regarding the rejection of claim 3 (Remarks page 12-14). Examiner notes that not in all cases of Kobayashi that the entire length of the reaction section in the vertical direction is pressed. One example where the entire length of the center portion and the pair of end portions that are not pressed by the pressing portion is given in the drawing in Fig. 8. In Fig. 8 shows multiple pressing portions that do not press the entire length in the vertical direction as argued. Therefore, applicant’s argument does not fully apply to the entire disclosure of Kobayashi.
Applicant also argues in the claimed ratio of the L/S being greater or equal to ½ recited in claim 1 the resistance-increase rate decreases and presents results on Table 1 of the instant specification, and the ratio of H/W being less than or equal ½ recited in claim 3 the resistance increase rate decrease and presents results in Table 3. Examiner notes that while the presented data for each case are very limited to be conclusive, there is no indication that the claimed ranges cannot be arrived at by a person of ordinary skill in the art by varying the size of the pressing portions and optimizing the ratio by routine experimentation. According to the MPEP “a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art”, (See MPEP 2144.04(IV) , and “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Therefore, the reference of Kobayashi renders the claimed invention obvious as presented above in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm,.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722