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 .
Status of Claims
This is a second non-final office action for application 18/036,073 in response to the amendment(s) and argument(s) filed on 03/24/2026. Claims 1-8 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/24/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive to the extent that the prior rejection of claims 1-2, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Chujo alone did not expressly establish all limitations of claim 1 arranged as claimed. Accordingly, the prior rejection of claims 1-2, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Chujo is withdrawn. However, the arguments are not persuasive of patentability for the reasons set forth below. New and/or updated rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth below. See claims 1-8 rejections below.
Applicant argues that “Chujo fails to disclose the claimed first electrode and second electrode because the Office mapped the electrode plate 15 and positive electrode 16 from one bipolar electrode 14 as the alleged first electrode and mapped the electrode plate 15 and negative electrode 17 from a different bipolar electrode 14 as the alleged second electrode” (see e.g. page 3 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require the first electrode and the second electrode to be provided on the same bipolar electrode. Claim 1 requires, in relevant part, that the second electrode is stacked on the first electrode such that the second active material layer faces the first active material layer. Chujo discloses this arrangement because Chujo teaches that, in the electrode stacked body 11, the positive electrode 16 of one bipolar electrode 14 faces the negative electrode 17 of another bipolar electrode 14 adjacent in the stacking direction, with separator 13 interposed therebetween (see e.g. paragraph [0039] of Chujo). Thus, Chujo discloses first and second electrodes arranged such that active material layers of different polarities face each other in the stacking direction. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Chujo merely describes each bipolar electrode 14 as including a single electrode plate 15, a positive electrode active material layer 16, and a negative electrode active material layer 17, and therefore fails to disclose the claimed power storage cell including a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate” (see e.g. page 3 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not require the claimed power storage cell to be limited to a single bipolar electrode of Chujo. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed power storage cell reads on the cell region formed between adjacent electrodes in a stacked bipolar battery, where the active material layer of one polarity faces the active material layer of the opposite polarity. Chujo discloses an electrode stacked body including adjacent bipolar electrodes 14 stacked through separators 13, wherein the positive electrode 16 of one bipolar electrode faces the negative electrode 17 of another bipolar electrode adjacent in the stacking direction (see e.g. paragraph [0039] of Chujo). Therefore, Chujo discloses the claimed first electrode and second electrode arrangement. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the first resin portion 21 of Chujo is part of the sealing body 12 and not part of the bipolar electrode 14, and therefore cannot be the claimed spacer” (see e.g. page 4 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees to the extent applicant argues that Chujo’s terminology controls the rejection. The claim does not require the claimed spacer to be expressly named a “spacer” in the prior art, nor does the claim exclude the spacer from also contributing to sealing. The relevant inquiry is whether the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed structure and arrangement. Nevertheless, applicant’s argument is persuasive to the extent that the prior anticipation rejection over Chujo alone did not expressly establish that the spacer is disposed between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate and surrounds the first active material layer and the second active material layer as viewed from the first direction. Accordingly, the prior 102 rejection has been withdrawn, and claim 1 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chujo in view of Tamaru. Chujo teaches the high-modulus reinforcing/spacer structure and lower-modulus sealing member relationship, and Tamaru teaches a spacer disposed between adjacent electrode plates and surrounding the active material layers as viewed from the stacking direction. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive of patentability.
Applicant argues that “the first reinforcing portion 24 and second reinforcing portion 25 of Chujo are provided in the negative terminal electrode 18 and positive terminal electrode 19, respectively, and that the negative terminal electrode 18 and positive terminal electrode 19 do not each include both positive and negative active material layers” (see e.g. pages 4-5 of applicant’s argument).
Applicant’s argument is persuasive to the extent that Chujo alone does not expressly disclose the claimed spacer arrangement for purposes of anticipation. Accordingly, the previous 102 rejection over Chujo alone has been withdrawn. However, applicant’s argument is not persuasive of patentability because the rejection has been updated under 35 U.S.C. 103. Chujo teaches first reinforcing portion 24 and second reinforcing portion 25 as high modulus reinforcing/spacer structures at peripheral edge portions of electrode plates, and further teaches that the Young’s modulus of the material of each of first reinforcing portion 24 and second reinforcing portion 25 is greater than the Young’s modulus of the material of first resin portion 21 and second resin portion 22 (see e.g. paragraph [0057] of Chujo). Tamaru teaches a spacer disposed between adjacent electrode plates and surrounding the active material layers as viewed from the stacking direction. Therefore, Chujo in view of Tamaru teaches or suggests the claimed spacer and low elastic modulus sealing member relationship. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive of patentability.
In conclusion, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive to the extent that the prior rejection of claims 1-2, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Chujo alone has been withdrawn. However, the arguments are not persuasive of patentability. New and/or updated rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth below. See claims 1-8 rejections below.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chujo et al. (JP-6915567-B2), US-20200373607-A1 and further in view of Tamaru et al (US-20210280948-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chujo discloses a power storage module (see e.g. "electricity-storage module" in paragraph [0006] and FIG. 2) comprising:
a stack including a plurality of power storage cells stacked in a first direction (see e.g. "a stacked body that includes a plurality of electrodes which are stacked along a first direction" in paragraph [0006]); and
a sealing member for sealing the stack (see e.g. "a sealing body that is provided to the stacked body so as to surround a peripheral edge portion of the electrodes" in paragraph [0006] and part number and part numbers 21 and 22 in FIG. 2), wherein the stack has a plurality of stack side surfaces that extends in the first direction (see e.g. "The electrode stacked body 11 includes a side surface 11 a that extends in the stacking direction D." in paragraph [0033] and FIG. 2), the sealing member is formed in contact with the stack side surfaces (see e.g. " sealing body that is provided to the stacked body so as to surround a peripheral edge portion of the electrodes" in paragraph [0006] and part number 22 in FIG. 2),
the power storage cells each include:
a first electrode (see e.g. "a positive electrode 16" in paragraph [0034] and part number 16 in FIG. 2) including a first electrode plate having a first surface intersecting the first direction (see e.g. "a positive electrode 16 provided on the first surface 15 a of the electrode plate 15" in paragraph [0034] and part numbers 15 and 15a in FIG. 2) and a first active material layer formed on the first surface (see e.g. "The positive electrode 16 is a positive electrode active material layer that is formed by coating a positive electrode active material on the electrode plate 15" in paragraph [0036]);
a second electrode (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0034] and part number 17 in FIG. 2) including a second electrode plate having a second surface intersecting the first direction (see e.g. "a negative electrode 17 provided on the second surface 15 b opposite to the first surface 15 a of the electrode plate 15." in paragraph [0034] and part numbers 15 and 15b in FIG. 2) and a second active material layer having an electrode polarity different from an electrode polarity of the first active material layer (see e.g. "The negative electrode 17 is a negative electrode active material layer" in paragraph [0036]; a negative electrode has a different polarity than a positive electrode) and formed on the second surface (see e.g. "The negative electrode 17 is a negative electrode active material layer that is formed by coating a negative electrode active material on the electrode plate 15." in paragraph [0036]),
the second electrode being stacked on the first electrode such that the second active material layer faces the first active material layer (see e.g. part numbers 18 and 19 in FIG. 2; the electrodes are stacked and the active material layers face each other); and
a high modulus reinforcing/spacer structure (see e.g. "a first reinforcing portion 24, and a second reinforcing portion 25" in paragraph [0035] and paragraphs [0050]-[0053] and part numbers 24 and 25 in FIG, 2), and
a portion of the sealing member disposed on at least one of the stack side surfaces serves as a low elastic modulus portion that has an elastic modulus lower than an elastic modulus of the spacer (see e.g. "Young's modulus of the material of each of the first reinforcing portion 24 and the second reinforcing portion 25 is greater than Young's modulus of the material of the first resin portion 21 and the second resin portion 22" in paragraph [0057]).
Chujo does not disclose that the spacer is disposed between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate and surrounding the first active material layer and the second active material layer as viewed from the first direction.
Tamaru, however, in the same field of endeavor, stacked electrodes with spacers and sealing members, discloses a spacer (see e.g. " spacers 21" in paragraph [0046]-[0047] of Tamaru) disposed between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate and surrounding the first active material layer and the second active material layer as viewed from the first direction (see e.g. part number 21 in FIG. 1 of Tamaru).
Tamaru also teaches that when the spacers are arranged between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate and surrounding the first active material layer and the second active material layer as viewed from the first direction short circuit between electrode plates can be suppressed (see e.g. paragraphs [0008] and [0057] of Tamaru). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the spacer of Chujo et al. such that it is disposed between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate and surrounding the first active material layer and the second active material layer as viewed from the first direction as taught by Tamaru et al. in order to suppress short circuit between electrode plates as suggested by Tamaru.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
1221
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Chujo, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 2, Chujo in view of Tamaru discloses the power storage module according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Chujo further discloses that the first electrode plate has the first surface and a third surface on opposite sides of the first electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below),
the second electrode plate has the second surface and a fourth surface on opposite sides of the second electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), and
the stack includes the power storage cells that are stacked on top of each other such that the third surface of the first electrode plate of one power storage cell is overlapped with the fourth surface of the second electrode plate of another power storage cell (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
647
1050
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Chujo, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 5, Chujo in view of Tamaru discloses the power module according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Chujo further discloses that the power storage module further includes a pair of current collectors respectively disposed at one end and the other end of the stack in the first direction (see e.g. " conductive plates 5" in paragraph [0029] and part number 5 in FIG. 2 and annotated figure below),
and the sealing member has a groove extending in a direction intersecting the first direction as viewed from a second direction intersecting the stack side surface (see e.g. part number 22 in FIG. 2 and annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
610
855
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Chujo, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 6, Chujo in view of Tamaru discloses the power storage module according to claim 5 (see e.g. claim 5 rejection above).
Chujo does not disclose that the groove extends diagonally to the first direction as viewed from the second direction.
Tamaru, however, discloses a power storage module (see e.g. "electricity storage device" in paragraph [0063] and FIG. 5 of Tamaru) with a sealing member that includes a groove (see e.g. " resin frame 125" in paragraph [0066] and part number 125 in FIG. 5) and that the groove extends diagonally to the first direction as viewed from the second direction (see e.g. paragraph [0064] and part number 125 in FIG. 5).
Tamaru also teaches that in a power storage module with this design it is possible to more reliably bond the sealing member and spacer allowing the device to be formed in a liquid-tight manner and prevent leakage of an electrolytic solution (see e.g. paragraph [0068] of Tamaru). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sealing member groove of Chujo et al. such that the groove extends diagonally to the first direction as viewed from the second direction as taught by Tamaru et al. in order to bond the sealing member and spacer in a liquid-tight manner preventing the leakage of an electrolytic solution as suggested by Tamaru.
Regarding Claim 7, Chujo in view of Tamaru discloses the power storage module according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Chujo further discloses that the spacer has, on opposite sides of the spacer, an inner side surface facing a space between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate and an outer side surface, respectively (see e.g. annotated figure below), and
a thickness of the sealing member in a direction intersecting the stack side surface is smaller than a thickness of the spacer between the inner side surface and the outer side surface of the spacer (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
592
931
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Chujo, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chujo et al. (JP-6915567-B2), US-20200373607-A1 is being used as the equivalent translation and referenced below in view of Tamaru et al (US-20210280948-A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yuji (JP-2013033632-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Chujo in view of Tamaru discloses the power storage module according to claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Chujo in view of Tamaru does not disclose that the power storage module further includes a detecting line that is disposed between the third surface and the fourth surface adjacent to each other and connected to at least one of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate to detect a state of the power storage cell, the detecting line extends out from the sealing member, and a portion of the sealing member disposed on at least one of the stack side surfaces from which the detecting line extends serves as the low elastic modulus portion.
Yuji, however, in the same field of endeavor, power storage modules with stacked power storage cells, discloses a power storage module (see e.g. FIG. 1 of Yuji) that includes a detecting line (see e.g. "voltage detection line" in paragraph [30] on page 5 of Yuji) that is disposed between the third surface and the fourth surface adjacent to each other (see e.g. annotated figure below) and connected to at least one of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below) to detect a state of the power storage cell (see e.g. "A voltage detection line for measuring a voltage" in paragraph [30] on page 5 of Yuji),
the detecting line extends out from the sealing member (see e.g. "the connection point between the lead wire 20 and the negative electrode active material layer 13 is inside the power generation element 17 sealed by the seal portion 23." in paragraph [81] on page 9 and "the lead wire 20 may be connected to a position of the negative electrode active material layer 13 that is covered with the seal portion 23 or another insulator." in paragraph [82] on page 9 and part numbers 13 and 23 in FIG. 1 and part number 20 in FIGs. 3 and 4 of Yuji).
Yuji also teaches that incorporating a voltage detection line into a battery in the configuration described above does not affect battery reaction and allows for battery voltage to be detected with high accuracy which is a desirable advantage in the art (see e.g. paragraph [6] on page 2 of Yuji). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the power storage module of Chujo et al. in view of Tamaru et al. such that it includes a detecting line that is disposed between the third surface and the fourth surface adjacent to each other and connected to at least one of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate to detect a state of the power storage cell and extends from the sealing member as taught by Yuji in order to not affect battery reaction and detect voltage of the battery cell with high accuracy as suggested by Yuji.
With regards to the claim limitation “a portion of the sealing member disposed on at least one of the stack side surfaces from which the detecting line extends serves as the low elastic modulus portion,” Chujo discloses that the sealing member disposed on at least one of the stack side surfaces serves as the low elastic modulus portion (see e.g. “Young’s modulus of the material of each of the first reinforcing portion 24 and the second reinforcing portion 25 is greater than Young’s modulus of the material of the first resin portion 21 and the second resin portion 22” in paragraph [0057]). Chujo in combination with Yuji would therefore result in a power storage module in which a detecting line extends from the sealing member at a stack side surface having a low elastic modulus portion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the detecting line extend from the low elastic modulus portion of the sealing member, as such a configuration would alleviate stress concentration and suppress damage to the detecting line caused by deformation of the sealing member during stacking or operation of the power storage module, which is a well-recognized design consideration in the art.
PNG
media_image5.png
316
715
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Yuji, figure 2, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 4, Chujo in view of Tamaru and Yuji discloses the power storage module according to claim 3 (see e.g. claim 3 rejection above).
Chujo in view of Tamaru does not expressly disclose that the portion of the sealing member disposed on the one of the stack side surfaces from which the detecting line extends has an elastic modulus that is lower than an elastic modulus of the other portion of the sealing member disposed on the others of the stack side surfaces.
Yuji, however, teaches a detecting line that extends from a sealing portion of a bipolar battery to detect a state of the battery cell (see e.g. “voltage detection line” in paragraph [30] on page 5 and “the connection point between the lead wire 20 and the negative electrode active material layer 13 is inside the power generation element 17 sealed by the seal portion 23” in paragraph [81] on page 9 and “the lead wire 20 may be connected to a position of the negative electrode active material layer 13 that is covered with the seal portion 23 or another insulator” in paragraph [82] on page 9 of Yuji).
Chujo further teaches that different resin/reinforcing portions of the sealing/spacer structure may have different Young’s moduli. In particular, Chujo teaches that the Young’s modulus of the material of each of the first reinforcing portion 24 and the second reinforcing portion 25 is greater than the Young’s modulus of the material of the first resin portion 21 and the second resin portion 22 (see e.g. paragraph [0057] of Chujo). Thus, Chujo teaches the use of materials having different elastic moduli in the peripheral sealing/spacer region of a stacked power storage module.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the sealing member of the modified Chujo power storage module such that the portion of the sealing member disposed on the stack side surface from which the detecting line extends has an elastic modulus lower than an elastic modulus of the other portions of the sealing member disposed on the other stack side surfaces. Such a configuration would allow the detecting line to be supported by a relatively soft portion of the sealing member at the location where the detecting line exits the stack, thereby predictably reducing stress concentration, vibration, and bending load applied to the detecting line while allowing the remaining side portions of the sealing member to maintain relatively higher stiffness of the power storage module.
Yuji also teaches that incorporating a voltage detection line into a battery in the configuration described above does not affect battery reaction and allows battery voltage to be detected with high accuracy (see e.g. paragraph [6] on page 2 of Yuji). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the power storage module of Chujo et al. in view of Tamaru et al. such that it includes the detecting line arrangement taught by Yuji and to provide a lower elastic modulus sealing portion at the stack side surface from which the detecting line extends in order to reduce stress applied to the detecting line while detecting the voltage of the battery cell with high accuracy as suggested by Yuji.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chujo et al. (JP-6915567-B2), US-20200373607-A1 is being used as the equivalent translation and referenced below in view of Tamaru et al (US-20210280948-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otohata (US-20180102568-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Chujo in view of Tamaru discloses the power storage module according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Chujo in view of Tamaru is silent as to the melting point of the sealing member and spacer and thus does not disclose that a melting point of the sealing member is lower than a melting point of the spacer.
Otohata, however, in the same field of endeavor, stacked electrode power modules with spacers and sealing members, discloses a power module (see e.g. "secondary battery" in paragraph [0010] and FIG. 2 of Otohata) with a spacer (see e.g. "separators" and part number 60 in paragraph [0034] of Otohata) and a sealing member (see e.g. "inner layer" in paragraph [0078] and part number 13 in FIG. 2 of Otohata) wherein a melting point of the sealing member is lower than a melting point of the spacer (see e.g. "the separator has a melting point or decomposition point higher than that of the inner layer 13" in paragraph [0092] of Otohata).
Otohata also teaches that when the sealing member has a lower melting point that the spacer the effect of melting or shrinking of the battery is prevented (see e.g. paragraph [0092] of Otohata). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the material used for the sealing member and the spacer of Chujo et al. in view of Tamaru et al. such that a melting point of the sealing member is lower than a melting point of the spacer as taught by Otohata in order to prevent melting and shrinking of the battery during manufacturing as suggested by Otohata.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Stalder et al. (US-20170179517-A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights