DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Election/Restriction
In response to the election/restriction response received on July 2nd, 2025, the applicant has elected Group I, claims 1-9, drawn to a battery, Species AI, drawn to a battery comprising a power generating element comprising at least one solid state battery, wherein the plurality of voids are provided in a striped pattern, and Species BII, drawn to a battery comprising a power generating element connected in series, without traverse. Therefore, due to being drawn to a non-elected invention, claims 5 and 10 are not examined in the present action.
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 1-2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishima et al, US 20190221795 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Minamitani, US 20160248052 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Fujishima teaches a cell pack (Fujishima, 1; Figure 2), corresponding to the power generating element of the claim, comprising a plurality of unit cells (Fujishima, 10; Figure 2) that are formed of a power generating element (Fujishima, 14; Figure 3), a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a solid electrolyte [Fujishima, 0035], that are laminated [Fujishima, 0051]. The cell pack comprises a restraint mechanism that includes a first end plate (Fujishima, 21; Figure 2) and a restraining hoop, corresponding to the first pressurizing member, and a second end plate (Fujishima, 22; Figure 2) and a restraining hoop, corresponding to the second pressurizing member, wherein the first end plate and restraining hoop are in contact with the first principal surface of the cell pack, as depicted in figure 2 of Fujishima, and the second end plate and restraining hoop are in contact with the second principal surface of the cell pack, that is opposite to the first principal surface as depicted in figure 2 of Fujishima. With the restraining hoops, it can be seen, that there are a plurality of voids on both the first and second end plates, corresponding to the first and second voids of the claim, as shown in the annotated figure 2 below. However, Fujishima is silent to teach on an insulating member, wherein the insulating member includes a side surface portion that covers a side surface of the power generating element, or an extending portion that extends from the side surface into each of the first and second voids.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Minamitani teaches a power storage device comprising a first insulation resin film (Minamitani, 5; Figure 2) laminated on the outer surface of the first metal foil layer [Minamitani, 0058], and a second insulation resin film (Minamitani, 15; Figure 2) laminated on the outer surface of the second metal foil [Minamitani, 0058], corresponding to the claimed insulation member, that includes a side surface portion covering a side surface of the bare cell (Minamitani, 20; Figure 3), corresponding to the power generating element, that extends from the side surface portion into the concave (Minamitani, 66; Figure 2) and the recessed concaved portion, corresponding to the first and second voids of the claim.
Minamitani and Fujishima are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Fujishima to include the insulation resin film, as taught by Minamitani, because such modification would result in a device with sufficient insulation properties and physical strength, and reduce the metal fatigue [Minamitani, 0028].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Fujishima teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the restraining hoop has a ring shape, wherein the pair of end plates are arranged inside of the ring of the restraining hoop [Fujishima, 0007], while figure 2 of Fujishima depicts the front view of the cell pack, it is obvious the first voids would extend continuously from one end to the other end of the first pressurizing member in a direction parallel to the first principal surface as required by the claim due to the ring shape of the restraining hoop.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Fujishima teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the restraining hoop has a ring shape, wherein the pair of end plates are arranged inside of the ring of the restraining hoop [Fujishima, 0007], while figure 2 of Fujishima depicts the front view of the cell pack, it is obvious the first voids on the first end plate (Fujishima, 21; Figure 2) between the restraining hoop (Fujishima, 24; Figure 2) would be provided in a striped patten as viewed in plan.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Fujishima teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the insulating member is an insulation resin film [Minamitani, 0028].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Fujishima teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the first and second end plates (Fujishima, 21/22; Figure 2) can be comprised of various materials that are not deformed by the restraining pressure applied to the unit cells, such as metal materials, like aluminum/aluminum alloy, iron or various steel materials, high-strength alloys, resin materials, such as reinforced plastics, engineering plastics, and the like, inorganic materials with high flexural strength such as fine ceramics, carbon fiber materials, and composites and the like, the restraining hoop can be made of similar materials that have a tensile strength such that the reaction force from the unit cells against the restraining force does not cause deformation [Fujishima, 0061], whereas the insulation member is comprised of preferably a polyamide film [Minamitani, 0120].
Therefore, while not explicitly taught that the first pressurizing member and the second pressurizing member is harder than the insulating member, it can be assumed based on the materials taught for the pressurizing members, that they are harder than in the insulating member. There is a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the hardness of the insulating member, either it is harder than the first and second pressurizing members or it is not, therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the insulating member is not harder than the first and second pressurizing members, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Fujishima teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the cell pack (Fujishima, 1; Figure 2) includes a plurality of unit cells (Fujishima, 10; Figure 2), wherein the unit cells are all-solid lithium-ion secondary batteries [Fujishima, 0035] arranged in the predetermined direction Z [Fujishima, 0033], which is orthogonal to the first principal surface as shown in figure 2 of Fujishima.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishima et al, US 20190221795 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Minamitani, US 20160248052 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tomura et al, JP 2019169313 A (as cited in IDS and English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Fujishima teaches the battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the first void being a through hole that penetrates the first pressurizing member in a direction parallel to the first principal surface.
Tomura teaches a battery stack in which one or more unit cells are stacked between a pair of end plates to restrain the battery stack [Tomura, 0009], wherein at least one of the end plates has a slit on at least one of the surfaces facing the battery stack and the surface opposite thereto [Tomura, 0018], indicating the slit could be on both surfaces, therefore a through hole that penetrates the end plate, corresponding to the first pressuring member, and no direction is indicated, therefore, it is considered that the slit in the end plate is parallel to the first principal surface.
Tomura and Fujishima are considered analogous arts in the area of restrained stacked battery cell comprising end plates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Fujishima to include the slit within the end plate as taught by Tomura, because such modification would result in a battery stack that allows the deformation in the stacking, and thereby reduce the unevenness in the in-plane direction of the restraint pressure applied by the end plate [Tomura, 0016].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishima et al, US 20190221795 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Minamitani, US 20160248052 A1, as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Kitaura et al, JP 2019106275 A (as cited in IDS and English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Fujishima teaches the battery of claim 8, wherein the end plates (Fujishima, 21/22; Figure 2) and the restraining hoops (Fujishima, 24; Figure 2), corresponding to the first and second pressurizing members, are comprised of materials, such as metals [Fujishima, 0061],, that are intrinsically electrically conductive, therefore, it would be obvious for the members to be electrically conductive, but is silent to teach the plurality of solid-state battery cells to be electrically connected in series.
Kitaura teaches a battery module comprising a stack of multiple battery cells, and a pair of end plates arranged at both ends of the stack and a restraint member, wherein the plurality of solid-state battery cells (Kitaura, 10; Figure 1) can be connected in series or parallel [Kitaura, 0014].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical compositioncannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658(Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior artteaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarilypresent.
Kitaura and Fujishima are considered analogous arts in the area of restrained stacked battery cell comprising end plates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Fujishima to include the series connection at taught by Kitaura because it is well-known to electrically connect battery cells in series in power generating elements. Further, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722