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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 24, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12, 15-21 are pending in the application. The examiner respectfully acknowledges the cancellation of claims 13-14 and the addition of new claims 15-21. The amendment filed December 24, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been maintained.
New rejections follow.
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 15, 17, and 19 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the lid portion" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17 and 19 depend on claim 15 and are also indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (EP 2975677 A1) in view of Busacca et al (US 20180145367 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ohara teaches an electric vehicle ([0004]) comprising an electricity storage device (a secondary battery) (50) housing an electricity storage element (21) sealed in a package member (29) ([0018] lines 20-22, Figs. 1 and 4) constructed of a thermal adhesive resin laminate layer ([0094] lines 26-29) that is sealed by fusing the periphery by heat ([0096] lines 44-45). Figure 4 of Ohara also shows the package member (29) with a rectangular opening for both its upper and lower portions, and the upper and lower portions of the package member necessarily have the recited depth to accommodate the electricity storage element. Accordingly, the bottom portion of package member (29), corresponding to a first package member, would have a housing portion having in one face thereof a substantially rectangular opening and formed to have a predetermined depth, and Fig. 1 shows that the housing portion of the first package member houses the electricity storage element. Ohara also shows in Figure 1 that the first package member has a lip portion below the electrode terminals (25, 27) protruding outward from a circumferential edge of the opening that would correspond to a flange.
Ohara also teaches that the top portion of the package member (29) corresponds to a second package member covering the opening and thermally bonded to the flange portion ([0096] lines 44-45). Figure 1 also shows that the pair of electrode terminals (25, 27) are held between the flange portion and the second package member. Figure 4 teaches that the electrode terminals are formed at opposite sides of the opening, and the sides protrude outward from opposite longer-side edges of the opening as claimed.
Ohara does not teach that a dimension of the opening along a longer-side direction thereof is greater than three times a dimension of the opening along a shorter-side direction thereof. However, Ohara recognizes that the aspect ratio of an electrode is a selection based on the particular vehicle and its required loading space and contemplates the use of an electrode aspect ratio of a 1:3 for their vehicle application [0103].
In the same field of endeavor, Busacca teaches that the length, width, and height dimensions of an electrode member will vary depending upon the energy storage device and its intended use ([0093]-[0096]), and further teaches that the length is generally substantially greater than each of its width and its height, providing examples of ratios of at least 5:1 and at least 20:1 for the ratio of length to each of the width and height for each member of the electrode population ([0098]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to adjust the dimensions of the electrode members as needed for the intended use, including to a ratio of 20:1, as taught by Busacca, and correspondingly, would have selected a housing portion of the claimed dimensions in order to accommodate for the size of the electricity storage element.
Busacca also discloses an embodiment wherein an electrode assembly 120 can have N=2 members for each of the electrode and for the counter-electrode ([0082]-[0083], Fig. 12A), which for electrodes with aspect ratios of 20:1 would result in an electrode assembly 120 with an aspect ratio of about 20:4, or 5:1. Busacca further discloses an electricity storage element 110 formed from a stack of electrode assemblies 120 in a package member 102 (Fig. 4), thus indicating that the opening of the first package member (bottom portion of package member 102) would also have an aspect ratio of about 5:1 and also teaching that a configuration in which a dimension of the opening along a longer-side direction thereof is greater than three times a dimension of the opening along a shorter-side direction thereof. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Both Busacca and Ohara teach that the dimensions of electrodes within the electricity storage element are a function of its application (Busacca: [0093]-[0096], Ohara: [0103] discloses vehicle installation requirements as an example of intended use), and as pointed out above, Busacca also teaches a dimension of the opening along a longer-side direction thereof can be greater than three times a dimension of the opening along a shorter-side thereof is a known configuration. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered an aspect ratio of about 5:1 to be known in the prior art and also that changing the dimensions of the opening, for example, from an aspect ratio of 3:1 to about 5:1, a matter of design choice for a specific installation requirement which is not inventive; see MPEP 2144.04, IV. A.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Busacca of the combination teaches that an aspect ratio of about 5:1 for the dimension of the opening along a longer-side direction to a dimension of the opening along a shorter-side direction is known and also discloses that the length, width, and height dimensions of an electrode member will vary depending upon the energy storage device and its intended use ([0093]-[0096]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to adjust the dimensions of the electrode members as needed for the intended use, including to a ratio of 20:1, as taught by Busacca, and correspondingly, would have selected a housing portion of the claimed dimensions in order to accommodate for the size of the electricity storage element.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered an aspect ratio of about 5:1 to be known in the prior art and also that changing the dimensions of the opening, for example, from an aspect ratio of 3:1 to about 5:1, a matter of design choice for a specific installation requirement which is not inventive; see MPEP 2144.04, IV. A. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 15, Ohara teaches an electric vehicle ([0004]) comprising an electricity storage device (a secondary battery) (50) housing an electricity storage element (21) sealed in a package member (29) ([0018] lines 20-22, Figs. 1 and 4) constructed of a thermal adhesive resin laminate layer ([0094] lines 26-29) that is sealed by fusing the periphery by heat ([0096] lines 44-45). Figure 4 of Ohara also shows the package member (29) with a rectangular opening for both its upper and lower portions, and the upper and lower portions of the package member necessarily have the recited depth to accommodate the storage element. Accordingly, the bottom portion of package member (29), corresponding to a first package member, would have a housing portion having in one face thereof a substantially rectangular opening and formed to have a predetermined depth, and Fig. 1 shows that the housing portion of the first package member houses the electricity storage element. Ohara also shows in Figure 1 that the first package member has a lip portion below the electrode terminals (25, 27) protruding outward from a circumferential edge of the opening that would correspond to a flange.
Ohara also teaches that the top portion of the package member (29) (also a lid portion) corresponds to a second package member covering the opening and thermally bonded to the flange portion ([0096] lines 44-45). Figure 1 also shows that the pair of electrode terminals (25, 27) are held between the flange portion and the second package member (also the lid portion). Figure 4 teaches that the electrode terminals are formed at opposite sides of the opening, and the sides protrude outward from opposite longer-side edges of the opening as claimed.
Ohara teaches a length of short side of a laminate cell battery is preferably 100 mm or more ([0100]), which is close to the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Ohara also does not teach away from the recited range, as the courts have established that “a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed,” see MPEP 2145, D, 1.
In the same field of endeavor, Busacca also teaches that the length, width, and height dimensions of an electrode member will vary depending upon the energy storage device and its intended use ([0093]-[0096]), and further teaches that the length is generally substantially greater than each of its width and its height, providing examples of ratios of at least 5:1 and at least 20:1 for the ratio of length to each of the width and height for each member of the electrode population ([0098]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to adjust the dimensions of the electrode members as needed for the intended use, as taught by Busacca, and correspondingly, would have selected a housing portion of the claimed dimensions, including dimensions of shorter sides, in order to accommodate for the size of the electricity storage element.
Busacca also provides example heights of the members of the electrode population that are in the range of about 0.05 mm to about 10 mm ([0096]), and Fig. 12A shows an electrode assembly 120 comprising of in-plane stacked (direction D) electrodes/counter-electrodes ([0065]) that suggest an electrode assembly height of about 0.05 mm to about 10 mm. Fig. 4 of Busacca shows an electricity storage device 100 wherein the sides associated with height (Z-direction) of the package member 102 are shorter sides relative to the longest dimension of the opening and wherein electricity storage element 110 is formed from a stack of six electrode assemblies 120. The stack of six electrode assemblies 120 suggests a height of about 0.3 mm to about 60 mm for the package member 102 and overlaps with the claimed range of a length of shorter sides of the electricity storage device is less than 100 mm. Thus, Busacca also teaches that it is known in the prior art that a height of the electricity storage device can correspond to a length of shorter sides of the electricity storage device and that the length can be less than 100 mm. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a length of shorter sides of the electricity storage device to be less than 100 mm because Busacca teaches it is a known configuration, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have also considered changing the relative dimensions of shorter sides a matter of design choice and which is not inventive; see MPEP 2144.04, IV. A. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claims 16-17, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1, and as previously pointed out in addressing claim 1, Ohara further teaches the second package member is a lid portion.
Regarding claims 18-19, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1 and as pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Figure 4 of Ohara also shows the package member (29) with a rectangular opening for both its upper and lower portions, and the upper and lower portions of the package member necessarily have the recited depth to accommodate the electricity storage element. Accordingly, the upper portion of package member (29), corresponding to the second package member, would have a housing portion having in one face thereof a substantially rectangular opening and formed to have a predetermined depth, and Fig. 1 shows that the electricity storage element is housed in the housing portion of the first package member and in the housing portion of the second package member.
Ohara also shows in Figure 1 that the second package member has a lip portion above the electrode terminals (25, 27) protruding outward from a circumferential edge of the opening in the second package member that would correspond to a flange portion.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (EP 2975677 A1) in view of Busacca et al (US 20180145367 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al (US 2013/0164613 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1. Figure 4 of Ohara indicates that a width of the electrode terminals is approximately one-half of a dimension of the opening along a longer-side direction.
Hashimoto is relied on to explicitly teach that the dimensions of the electrode terminal (1), such as a width, can be selected according to the desired capacity of the secondary battery ([0050]); therefore, dimension is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have applied the teaching of Hashimoto to adjust a width of the electrode terminal of the electricity storage device of modified Ohara to the claimed range to achieve the desired operating capacity of the secondary battery. Additionally, the courts have ruled that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1 but is silent regarding the dimensions of the electrode terminals. Hashimoto teaches that the dimensions of the electrode terminal (1), such as a width, can be selected according to the desired capacity of the secondary battery ([0050]); therefore, dimension is a result-effective variable. Hashimoto further teaches that the range can be set to 20-120 mm ([0050] lines 1-6), which overlaps with the claimed range. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have applied the teaching of Hashimoto to adjust a width of the electrode terminal of the electricity storage device of modified Ohara to the claimed range to achieve the desired operating capacity of the secondary battery. Additionally, the courts have ruled that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1 but is silent regarding the dimensions of the electrode terminals. Hashimoto teaches that the dimensions of the electrode terminals can be selected according to the desired capacity of the secondary battery ([0050]); therefore, dimension is a result-effective variable. Hashimoto further teaches that the range can be set to 20-70 mm ([0050] lines 1-6), which overlaps with the claimed range. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have applied the teaching of Hashimoto to modify the electrode terminals of modified Ohara such that they extend from the outer edge of the flange portion of the electricity storage device to the claimed range to achieve the desired operating capacity of the secondary battery. Additionally, the courts have ruled that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (EP 2975677 A1) in view of Busacca et al (US 20180145367 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Echizen et al (JP 2016195132 A).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1. Applicant defines the machine direction of the package member as being identifiable based on microscopy of the thermal adhesive resin layer (instant spec [0052]).
Echizen teaches that the adhesive resin film of laminate resin material used for packaging of battery cells (translation [0008] lines 166-171) generally has significant mechanical anisotropy due to molecular orientation in the material during the molding process, resulting in improved mechanical properties in the direction parallel to the molecular orientation as compared to in the perpendicular orientation in the material ([0027] lines 459-464). Echizen also teaches that it is advantageous to select materials and processes to control an advantageous orientation and thereby control the physical properties ([0027] lines 468-469), such as minimizing cracking or whitening in the directions perpendicular to the molecular orientation ([0003] lines 67-71). Echizen also teaches that during the extrusion molding process for forming the resin film, the molecular orientation of the material tends to be in the machine direction of the material film due to stresses generated during the process ([0003] lines 63-67). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrange the positions of the electrode terminals of the electricity storage device of modified Ohara to minimize overall bending of the laminate material in disadvantageous directions, including an arrangement such that a machine direction of the packaging member is orthogonal to a width direction of the electrode terminals, as claimed.
Claims 7- 9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (EP 2975677 A1) in view of Busacca et al (US 20180145367 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagihara (JP 5916500 B2) and supported by evidentiary reference “Over” (Merriam-Webster).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 1 but is silent regarding a circuit board and the arrangement of the electricity storage devices. Yanagihara teaches (Fig. 8) an electricity storage device stack (1) including a plurality of the electricity storage devices (2) arranged side by side along a depth direction of the housing portion (translation: p2 para 2: lines 1-3). Yanagihara further teaches (Figure 13) showing a circuit board comprising of circuit component (51) and bus bar module (5, 6) wherein 51 is electrically connected to the electrode terminals (21) (p2 para 6: lines 1-3; p4 para 1: lines 1-3) and wherein the circuit board has slits (32) through which the electrode terminals (21) are inserted (p2 para 7, lines 1-2). The pattern of the plurality of busbars (31) shown in Figs. 6-7 reads on an electrode pattern and is electrically connected to the electrode terminals inserted through the slits (p2 para 6 lines 2-6). Yanagihara further teaches that their configuration for an electricity storage device stack suppresses temperature rise of the battery cells (2) and prevents early deterioration of some batteries (p4 para 2-3). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was filed to have modified the electric vehicle of modified Ohara to have utilized a plurality of modified Ohara’s electricity storage devices within an electricity storage device stack as taught by Yanagihara to provide an advantage of suppressing temperature rise of the battery cells and preventing the early deterioration of some cells.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination above teaches the electricity storage device stack of claim 7, and the electricity storage device stack as taught by Yanagihara further discloses that the tip parts of the electrode terminals (21) are bent to be electrically connected to the electrode pattern of the bus bar module (31) (Figs. 4-5; p2 para 4).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 7, and the electricity storage device stack as taught by Yanagihara further teaches (Figs. 16-17) a cooling plate (65) having inside it a refrigerant passage (66) through which cooling water as refrigerant is circulated (p4 para 6). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “over” includes “across a barrier or intervening space” (Merriam-Webster; 1a definition) and Figure 16 shows that the cooling plate (65) extends beyond the vertical boundary of the circuit board and is therefore disposed over the circuit board. It is also shown to be close to the electrode terminals.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 7, and Ohara further teaches that the electricity storage device can be used as a power source for a motor (i.e., a driving motor) for an electric vehicle ([0079] lines 2-3). Thus, within the combination, the electricity storage device stack comprising of a plurality of electricity storage devices would be expected to supply the driving motor with electric power and also meet the recited limitation of an electric vehicle being driven by the driving motor.
Yanagihara further discloses that a plurality of the electricity storage device stacks (1) would be mounted under the vehicle floor of an electric vehicle (p5 para 3) wherein the depth direction (stacking direction) of the housing portion is aligned with a height direction of the mobile body, as shown in Figure 19. Yanagihara teaches a benefit of improved cooling of each battery (2) with this configuration within the vehicle (p5 para 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have arranged the electricity storage device stacks of modified Ohara to be mounted under the vehicle floor for the benefit of improved cooling of the vehicle batteries, as further taught by Yanagihara.
Regarding claim 20, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 9, and Yanagihara of the combination teaches in Figure 16 that the cooling plate (65) extends beyond the vertical boundary of the circuit board and is therefore disposed over the circuit board comprising of circuit component (51) and bus bar module (5, 6) and including its slits (32). The slits and the cooling plate are three-dimensional objects, and there exists at least one face of the slits that is parallel to the cooling plate (i.e., to the largest plane of the cooling plate); accordingly, the cooling plate faces the faces of the slits parallel to it, or faces the slits.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (EP 2975677 A1) in view of Busacca et al (US 20180145367 A1) and Yanagihara (JP 5916500 B2) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Curtis et al (US 2016/0204401 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 7, and Ohara further teaches that the electricity storage device can be used as a power source for a motor (i.e., a driving motor) for an electric vehicle ([0079] lines 2-3). Thus, within the combination, the electricity storage device stack comprising of a plurality of electricity storage devices would be expected to supply the driving motor with electric power and also meet the recited limitation of an electric vehicle being driven by the driving motor.
Curtis teaches that the stacking axis of an electricity storage device stack used within a vehicle (Fig. 1) need not coincide with the elongate dimension of the mounting tray ([0028] lines 9-11), as shown in Fig. 15 wherein battery modules as electricity storage device stacks (200) have stacking axes in two different directions ([0028] lines 17-22). One of ordinary skill in the art could select an appropriate stacking strategy to account for the installation of the battery modules within a vehicle including an arrangement such that a longer-side direction of the opening is aligned with a left-right direction of the body of the mobile body, a shorter-side direction is aligned with a height direction of the body of the mobile body, and the depth direction of the housing portion is aligned with the front-rear direction of the mobile body thereby meeting the recited limitations. Curtis also discloses that their design allows for adaptability and reconfigurability of the battery assembly for variations in cells’ size, number, or orientation and the accompanying electrical equipment ([0005] lines 1-4; 13-21; [0007] lines 6-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the electricity storage device stacks of modified Ohara within the battery pack assembly design as taught by Curtis in order to take advantage of its versatility to accommodate for many cell sizes, number, and orientations.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 7, and Ohara further teaches that the electricity storage device can be used as a power source for a motor (i.e., a driving motor) for an electric vehicle ([0079] lines 2-3). Thus, within the combination, the electricity storage device stack comprising of a plurality of electricity storage devices would be expected to supply the driving motor with electric power and also meet the recited limitation of an electric vehicle being driven by the driving motor.
Curtis teaches that the stacking axis of an electricity storage device stack used within a vehicle (Fig. 1) need not coincide with the elongate dimension of the mounting tray ([0028] lines 9-11), as shown in Fig. 15 wherein battery modules as electricity storage device stacks (200) have stacking axes in two different directions ([0028] lines 17-22). One of ordinary skill in the art could select an appropriate stacking strategy to account for the installation of the battery modules within a vehicle including an arrangement such that a longer-side direction of the opening is aligned with a front-rear direction of the body of the mobile body and a shorter-side direction is aligned with a height direction of the body of the mobile body, and the stacking direction that is the depth direction of the housing portion is aligned with the left-right direction of the mobile body thereby meeting the recited limitations. Curtis also discloses that their design allows for adaptability and reconfigurability of the battery assembly for variations in cells’ size, number, or orientation and the accompanying electrical equipment ([0005] lines 1-4; 13-21; [0007] lines 6-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the electricity storage device stacks of modified Ohara within the battery pack assembly design as taught by Curtis in order to take advantage of its versatility to accommodate for many cell sizes, number, and orientations.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohara et al (EP 2975677 A1) in view of Busacca et al (US 20180145367 A1) and Yanagihara (JP 5916500 B2) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim et al (KR20150114277A).
Regarding claim 21, the combination above teaches the electric vehicle of claim 7 and Ohara teaches a peripheral seal portion along a circumference of the housing portion is formed by thermal bonding between the flange portion and the second package member (Ohara discloses “The power generating element 57 is covered by the battery outer casing material 52 of the lithium ion secondary battery 50 with its periphery fused by heat. The power generating element 57 is sealed in a state in which the positive electrode tab 58 and the negative electrode tab 59 are led to the outside” [0096] lines 44-45. The fused periphery corresponds to the claimed peripheral seal portion because it is fused by heat (i.e., thermal bonding) and provides a seal, and would be located along the circumference of the housing portion that is between the flange portion and the second package member).
Within the combination, Yanagihara discloses wherein the circuit board has slits (32) through which the electrode terminals (21) are inserted (p2 para 7, lines 1-2), as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 7, and Yanagihara further discloses that the tip parts of the electrode terminals (21) are bent to be electrically connected to the electrode pattern of the bus bar module (31) (Figs. 4-5; p2 para 4). Thus, the combination teaches the electrode terminals are inserted through the slits and are bent, and tip parts of the electrode terminals are electrically connected to the electrode pattern.
The combination does not teach the peripheral seal portion is inserted through the slits and is bent.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches an electrode lead having a shape that is bent or curved within a sealing area S formed at the edge of a pouch case (machine translation [0009], Figs. 3, 5-8), and discloses that the sealing area may have a shape that is bent or curved together with the electrode lead ([0018]-[0019], [0038]). Kim teaches their invention improves the durability of a secondary battery by reducing the risk of damage to the connection portion of an electrode lead and an electrode assembly due to external impact, and also reduces the risk of an internal short circuit occurring due to damage to a secondary battery, thereby ensuring the safety of using a secondary battery ([0025]-[0026]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the modified electric vehicle of Ohara to utilize a configuration of a bent sealing area of the pouch case that is bent or curved together with the electrode lead (terminal) as taught by Kim in order to improve the durability of a secondary battery by reducing the risk of damage to the connection portion of an electrode lead (terminal) and an electrode assembly due to external impact, and also to reduce the risk of an internal short circuit occurring due to damage to a secondary battery, thereby ensuring the safety of using a secondary battery.
Consequently, in the combination of modified Ohara in view of Kim, the peripheral seal portion would have been bent together with the electrode terminals as the electrode terminals are inserted through the slits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ohara teaches away from the claimed aspect ratio wherein “a dimension of the opening along a longer-side direction thereof is greater than three times a dimension of the opening along a shorter-side direction thereof” as recited in claim 1.
Ohara contemplates within their immediate application an aspect ratio of a rectangular ratio that is preferably 1 to 3, and recognizes that a preferred ratio may be a function of a specific vehicle’s use requirements, including its installation space requirements ([0103]). Regarding Ohara’s disclosure that “when the aspect ratio defined as a longitudinal/transversal ratio of a positive electrode active substance layer is in the range of 1 to 3, the effect of improving the cycle durability by having the constitution of the present invention is fully exhibited” ([0127]), the alleged preference is given in the context of a specific positive electrode active substance taught by Ohara, as the examiner previously pointed out in the Advisory Action of 11/26/2025. Furthermore, the courts have established that “a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed,” see MPEP 2145, D, 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 20 February 2026