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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending;
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9 are currently amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 03/06/2026
The claims objections of claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The art rejections of claims 1-9 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and replaced with new 103 rejections;
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Muro in view of Ueki and Muro in view of Ueki and Kazuki.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muro et al. (JP-2015159068-A), hereinafter Muro, in view of Ueki et al. (US-20130011708-A1), hereinafter Ueki.
Regarding claim 1, Muro teaches an energy storage device comprising: a flattened electrode assembly formed by winding a belt-like electrode in a longitudinal direction thereof around a winding axis and including two curved surface portions and a flat portion located between the two curved surface portions (Muro fig. 5; [0013]-[0018] positive electrode, negative electrode, and insulator (separator) are sheets that form an electrode body that is flattened by winding); a case housing the flattened electrode assembly ([0013]-[0018] second housing 20 including walls and first member 21); wherein an inside of the case is in a negative pressure state ([0026] a pressure inside the housing 20 is below the pressure outside the housing), the case includes a recessed side wall which protrudes inward of the case due to the negative pressure state of the inside of the case, the flattened electrode assembly is pressed by the recessed side wall of the case ([0026] the reduced pressure inside the housing 20 creates a recess in the housing in the wall portions 20a and 20c; [0031]; [0034]; figs. 4-6, 8-9).
Muro fails to teach a sheet-like member disposed between the flattened electrode assembly and the case, the flattened electrode assembly is pressed by the recessed side wall of the case with the sheet-like member interposed between the flattened electrode assembly and the recessed side wall, the sheet-like member is in contact only with the flat portion with respect to the flattened electrode assembly, and the sheet-like member is a rectangular shape as viewed along the winding axis of the flattened electrode assembly.
Ueki is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrode assemblies ([0001]). Ueki teaches sheet-like member disposed between the flattened electrode assembly and the case, the flattened electrode assembly is pressed by the side wall of the case with the sheet-like member interposed between the flattened electrode assembly and the recessed side wall, the sheet-like member is in contact only with the flat portion with respect to the flattened electrode assembly, and the sheet-like member is a rectangular shape as viewed along the winding axis of the flattened electrode assembly (fig. 2 and 5-7 resin spacers 60 [0039]; [0045]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muro and provided a sheet-like member disposed between the flattened electrode assembly and the case. Doing so allows for tight contact between the case wall and central portion of the electrode assembly (Ueki [0051]), and restricts movement of the end portions (curved portions) while allowing for pressure contact between the electrode sheets and separators in the end-portion (Ueki [0056]; [0069]). Therefore, thermal contraction and short circuits can be prevented, increasing battery reliability (Ueki [0069]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Muro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Muro does not explicitly teach that a ratio of a thickness of the sheet-like member to the thickness of the flattened electrode assembly is 0.030 or more. However, modified Muro does teach that the thickness of each sheet-like member/spacer can be adjusted such that there is tight contact between the battery case and the central portion of the electrode assembly (Ueki [0051]) and so that predetermined tensile forces are exerted between the central portion and the end portions (Ueki [0056]). IN an effort to optimize the role of the sheet-like members/spacers, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed ratio of a thickness of the sheet-like member to the thickness of the electrode assembly of 0.030 or more in order to achieve the desired tensile forces between the central and end portions of the electrode assembly (Ueki [0056]). It has been held that when the general conditions are discloses in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, modified Muro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Muro also teaches wherein the case includes metal (Muro [0015]), the energy storage device comprises an insulating member which covers the flattened electrode assembly and insulates the flattened electrode assembly and the case from each other (Muro [0015] insulating sheet provided on an inner surface of the case to insulate the case from the positive and negative leads), and the sheet-like member is disposed between the flattened electrode assembly and the insulating member (Ueki [0041]; insulation film folded like a box shape between the battery case and the electrode body; it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that given the box shape of the insulation resin film, the insulation resin film would be disposed outside of the spacers 60).
Regarding claim 7, modified Muro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Muro also teaches that the sheet-like member is flat in the energy storage device before being charged-discharged (Ueki fig. 5, spacer 60; [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Muro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Muro also taches wherein the sheet-like member is flat in a state where the sheet-like member is taken out of the case (Ueki fig. 5, spacer 60; [0051]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Muro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Muro also teaches wherein each of the two curved surface portions is thicker than the flat portion in a thickness direction of the flattened electrode assembly (Muro fig. 5).
Claims 2 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muro in view of Ueki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kazuki et al., (WO-2021065420-A1), hereinafter Kazuki.
Regarding claim 2, modified Muro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Muro fails to teach that when a thickness of the flattened electrode assembly is defined as T, both ends of the sheet-like member in an opposing direction for the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position of T/2 inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions.
Kazuki is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrodes for secondary batteries (pg. 2, paragraph 4). Unlike the sheet-like members in modified Muro and the instant application, Kazuki teaches spacers including ribs to press on the electrode assembly outside of the battery case ([Abstract]). While outside of the battery case, the ribs along the spacers still achieve pressing the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (pg. 9, paragraph 7). Kazuki teaches that when a thickness of the flattened electrode assembly is defined as T, both ends of the sheet-like member in an opposing direction for the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position of T/2 inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions. Example 1 is given wherein the thickness of the electrode assembly is 10.5 mm, the flat region height is 50 mm, and the pressing member length is 35 mm (pg. 10, paragraph 6 – pg. 11). With a T/2 of 5.25 mm, both ends of the sheet-like member/pressing member in an opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position on a T/2 inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Muro to adjust the length of the sheet-like member disposed inside the electrode case in relation to the length of the flat portion of the electrode assembly as claimed above to press the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (Kazuki pg. 9, paragraph 7). The above pressing region in relation to the flat region height is also advantageous for resistance degradation rate and discharge resistance reversible degradation rate. This can be seen in example 1 in Table 1 in comparison to, for example, comparative examples 2 and 3 wherein the pressing region in relation to the height of the flat region is outside one or more of the limits specified in the instant application (Kazuki pg. 10, paragraph 6 – pg. 11, paragraph 4; Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Muro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Muro fails to teach that both ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position on a 0.1 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions.
Kazuki is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrodes for secondary batteries (pg. 2, paragraph 4). Unlike the sheet-like member in modified Muro and the instant application, Kazuki teaches spacers including ribs to press on the electrode assembly outside of the battery case ([Abstract]). While outside of the battery case, the ribs along the spacers still achieve pressing the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (pg. 9, paragraph 7). Kazuki teaches that both ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are present in a range inside a position on a 0.1 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions (the ribs, hereinafter pressing members, have a length of 60 to 100 when the height of the flat section, interpreted as the claimed L, is 100 ([Abstract]). As such, by overlapping of ranges, the ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions can be present in a range inside a position on a 0.1 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on a side of the two curved surface portions). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Muro to adjust the length of the sheet-like member disposed inside the electrode case in relation to the length of the flat portion of the electrode assembly as claimed above to press the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (Kazuki pg. 9, paragraph 7). The above pressing region in relation to the flat region height is also advantageous for resistance degradation rate and discharge resistance reversible degradation rate. This can be seen in example 1 in Table 1 in comparison to, for example, comparative examples 2 and 3 wherein the pressing region in relation to the height of the flat region is outside one or more of the limits specified in the instant application (Kazuki pg. 10, paragraph 6 – pg. 11, paragraph 4; Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Muro teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Muro fails to teach that when a length in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions of the flat portion is defined as L, both ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are each present in a range outside a position on a 0.2 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on the side of the two curved surface portions.
Kazuki is analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flat wound electrodes for secondary batteries (pg. 2, paragraph 4). Unlike the sheet-like members in modified Muro and the instant application, Kazuki teaches spacers including ribs to press on the electrode assembly outside of the battery case ([Abstract]). While outside of the battery case, the ribs along the spacers still achieve pressing the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (pg. 9, paragraph 7). Kazuki teaches that when a length in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions of the flat portion is defined as L, both ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions are each present in a range outside a position on a 0.2 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on the side of the two curved surface portions (the ribs, hereinafter pressing members, have a length of 60 to 100 when the height of the flat section, interpreted as the claimed L, is 100 ([Abstract]). As such, by overlapping of ranges, the ends of the sheet-like member in the opposing direction of the two curved surface portions can be present in a range outside a position on a 0.2 L inner side from both ends of the flat portion on the side of the two curved surface portions). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Muro to adjust the length of the sheet-like member disposed inside the electrode case in relation to the length of the flat portion of the electrode assembly as claimed above to press the flat portion of the electrode assembly evenly upward or downward in the height direction (Kazuki pg. 9, paragraph 7). The above pressing region in relation to the flat region height is also advantageous for resistance degradation rate and discharge resistance reversible degradation rate. This can be seen in example 1 in Table 1 in comparison to, for example, comparative examples 2 and 3 wherein the pressing region in relation to the height of the flat region is outside one or more of the limits specified in the instant application (Kazuki pg. 10, paragraph 6 – pg. 11, paragraph 4; Table 1).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 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, 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights