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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has argued (Remarks, Pgs. 2-3) that the reference “International Search Report of PCT Application No. PCT/JP2024/034225 dated November 16, 2021” is included in the file. After review, the noted reference was found in the file. Accordingly, the International Search Report has been considered.
The Examiner notes, however, that the International Search Report references multiple foreign patents which are not individually listed in the IDS separate from citations of other documents. Only the references individually listed in the IDS were considered.
Specification
The substitute specification provided by the Applicant is acknowledged and accepted.
Applicant is reminded, however, of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites, “wherein the reinforcing member is in a rod shape”. Although the instant specification supports that the reinforcing member is in a flat rod shape [instant specification: 0039, 0058], the instant specification does not appear to support that the reinforcing member is formed in a “rod shape”, which is understood to imply a rounded shape (as evidenced by the Cambridge Dictionary). As such, Claim 12 is rejected in introducing new matter.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites, “wherein the reinforcing member is in a rod shape”. Here, it is unclear what shape intended by the recitation of a “rod shape”. Specifically, a “rod shape” is understood to imply a shape with a curved surface. However, the instant specification does not indicate that the reinforcing member has a curved, “rod” shape (see 128 in instant Figs. 6-8). Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. The term “rod shape” in Claim 12 is used by the claim to mean “a flat rectangular shape” while the accepted meaning is “a long thin pole”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. As such, Claim 12 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the term “rod shape” will be interpreted as “a flat rectangular shape” as implied by the instant specification (see instant Figs. 6-8; [0038, 0058]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fees et al. (US-20200052260-A1; cited in IDS filed 05/30/2025) in view of Kazuto et al. (JP-2010108794-A; see Applicant provided NPL filed 05/30/2025 for citations) and in further view of Ju et al. (US-20180183119-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fees discloses an electric power storage module (battery module; [0028, 0036]). Fees discloses that the battery module is formed by securing a plurality of cell layers within jigs, and then removing the jigs ([0031-0036]; see also Fig. 13) and attaching a bottom plate and a cover [0037-0039]. The resulting electric power storage module (battery module) comprises:
an electric power storage device (cell layer 1; [0031]);
a holder (corresponds to the combination of the external frame components 420 and 1110, sidewalls 1205A, and the spacers 700A; [0029-0036]) that holds the electric power storage device (see Figs. 4-7); and
a reinforcing member (bottom plate 1400A; [0037]) for reinforcing the holder, wherein
the electric power storage device includes
a plurality of electrode assemblies (battery cells; [0031]) each being cylindrical (see Fig. 6; [0031]), and
a direction in which a spiral axis of each of the plurality of electrode assemblies extends (see Fig. 1A; [0022]) is defined as an axial direction (A).
Fees discloses that jigs are used to fix the position of each battery cell in the initial cell layer of battery cells [0031]. The positioning of subsequent cell layers are additionally secured via glue [0035-0036]. Fees discloses that the battery cell position may be subject to disruption at points during the construction of the battery module [0043]. The battery module can be applied to an electric vehicle [0021, 0039, 0055-0056]. Fees does not teach that the electrode assemblies include a film outer covering body including a plurality of containers and a sealing part.
Kazuto teaches a battery module in which a plurality of laminated battery units are continuously aligned (Abstract, see Fig. 1). The laminated battery units can be wound [Abstract, 0007, 0023], and the units are sealed by a laminate film [0007, 0010, 0014]. The laminated batteries can be assembled into a module [0011], and Kazuto teaches that laminated batteries can be used in an electric vehicle [0002].
Advantageously, Kazuto teaches that the laminated batteries are easily stacked to form a structure of a multi-line battery pack or battery module [0002]. The battery module can be easily assembled because a laminate battery continuous body has laminate battery units which are aligned and sealed in advance [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have laminated the cylindrical battery cells each battery cell layer of Fees such that they are connected to one another via a laminate film as taught by Kazuto with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery module capable of facilitating alignment and positioning of the battery cells within the battery module.
By connecting the cylindrical battery cells of each cell layer of Fees via a laminate film, modified Fees thereby renders obvious a film outer covering body that includes a plurality of containers (corresponds to the space which accommodates each battery unit) each of which individually wraps a corresponding one of the plurality of electrode assemblies, and a sealing part (corresponds to the intervening portions of laminate film that connect each container) that seals the plurality of containers and connects the plurality of containers to each other (see annotation of Fees Fig. 1, below, for visualization) in an array direction (B) of the plurality of electrode assemblies, wherein the array direction (B) is orthogonal to the axial direction (A).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Visualization of container vs. sealing part in laminated battery units
Fees discloses that the holder includes a side plate (external frame component 420; Fig. 4) that extends in the array direction (B), the side plate including a plurality of concave portions that are arranged in the array direction (B) (see annotation Fees Fig. 4, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
568
1001
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Fees Fig. 9A
Fees discloses that each of the cylindrical battery cells is fit into a respective recess (see Fig. 6C). Since modified Fees renders obvious laminated battery cells wherein each battery cell is accommodated in a container, modified Fees thereby renders obvious “a plurality of recesses that are arranged in the array direction and into which the plurality of containers are fitted”.
Fees discloses that the reinforcing member (bottom plate 1400A) is secured to the battery module via glue [0037]. Fees also teaches that various modifications can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention [0058]. Fees does not specify a connection between the holder and the reinforcing member, and therefore Fees does not teach that the reinforcing member includes a first groove, the first groove being elongated in the array direction.
Ju teaches a battery module (Fig. 7) wherein cooling plates are connected to a housing to form a first frame [0037]. In one embodiment, the housing comprises concave portions and the cooling plates comprises convex portions (see Figs. 2, 4). The concave portions correspond to the recited limitation of a groove. Advantageously, the housing and cooling plates are assembled and fixedly coupled by the combination of the convex portions and the concave portions [0038, 0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included convex portions in the holder and concave portions in the reinforcing member of Fees with a reasonable expectation that the addition of convex and concave portions would result in a successful battery module wherein the holder and reinforcing member are fixedly coupled.
By including concave portions in the reinforcing member of modified Fees, modified Fees thereby renders obvious that the reinforcing member includes a first groove. The location of the first groove can be visualized using Fees Fig. 14A, below. As seen in the annotation, below, the first groove is elongated in the array direction (B), the reinforcing member includes a surface facing the holder (see annotation of Fees Fig. 14A, below), and the first groove is disposed on the surface facing the holder.
PNG
media_image3.png
716
1442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Fees Fig. 14A
Since modified Fees renders obvious convex portions in the holder and concave portions (i.e. grooves) in the reinforcing member in order to couple the holder and the reinforcing member (see above), modified Fees thereby renders obvious that the convex portion of the side plate is fit into a concave portion (i.e. first groove) of the reinforcing member. Therefore, “the reinforcing member is arranged together with the holder via the side plate fitted in the first groove”.
Modified Fees further renders obvious that the holder includes a pair of projections (corresponds to sidewalls 1205A; [0036]; Fig. 12A) that project in a projection direction intersecting the array direction and the axial direction from both ends of the side plate in the array direction (see annotation of Fees Fig. 14A, below).
Although modified Fees does not teach that the reinforcing member includes second grooves, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added additional grooves (i.e. concave portions) on the surface of the reinforcing member facing the holder since Ju teaches that the combination of grooves (concave portions) and convex portions can be used to fixedly couple two structures [Ju: 0038, 0051], and since Fees discloses a holder which extends both in the array direction and the projection direction (see annotation of Fees Fig. 14A, below). Therefore, in addition to a first groove extending in the array direction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included second grooves extending in the projection direction and connected to the first groove, with a reasonable expectation that the addition of second grooves would result in a successful battery module wherein the holder and the reinforcing member are fixedly coupled.
PNG
media_image4.png
854
1734
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Fees Fig. 14A
As seen in the annotation of Fees Fig. 14A, above, the projections are fitted (interpreted as “built to be fixed in a particular place” as evidenced by the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary) on the surface facing the holder.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Fees renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the reinforcing member includes first grooves and second grooves, wherein the first groove is connected to the second grooves (see annotation of Fees Fig. 14A, above).
Regarding Claims 4-5, modified Fees renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Fees further teaches that a cover can be included in the battery module [0039]. The combination of the cover and the bottom plate read on the recited limitation of a reinforcing member, as evidenced by the instant specification, which indicates that the reinforcing member can be formed of multiple, separable parts [instant specification: 0026, 0038]. Therefore the reinforcing member (i.e. the combination of the cover and the bottom plate) is disposed on both sides of the holder in the axial direction as required by Claim 4.
Although Fees does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the reinforcing member is provided with an insulating property, Fees discloses that the bottom plate can be insulative [0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the reinforcing member to have an insulating property with a reasonable expectation that forming the reinforcing member to have an insulating property as required by Claim 5 would result in a successful reinforcing member.
Fees further discloses that a portion of the reinforcing member (i.e. the cover) includes ribs (see annotation of Fig. 16A, below; MPEP 2125, I). The ribs are located adjacent to a contact plate (Fig. 16A). The contact plate is used to establish electrical bonds to the battery cells [0038], and reads on a bus bar. A “mounting part” is broadly and reasonably interpreted, absent a special definition in the instant specification, as a part onto which a bus bar could be mounted (i.e. attached to for support, as evidenced by the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary). Since the ribs are located adjacent to the contact plate, and the contact plate could be attached to the ribs for support, the ribs are therefore interpreted as reading on the recited “mounting part” as required by Claim 5.
PNG
media_image5.png
473
793
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Fees Fig. 16A.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Fees renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the battery module includes a plurality of cell layers, and that battery cells of each cell layer are laminated to each other (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Therefore, modified Fees renders obvious “a plurality of electric power storage devices each being the electric power storage device”.
The instant specification indicates that multiple, separate parts can be considered a single member (i.e. the claimed “reinforcing member” can be considered multiple members; [instant specification: 0026, 0038]). Therefore, the combination of the spacers (700A) and the external frames (420, 110) [0032-0036]) are broadly and reasonably interpreted as reading on the side plate.
The side plate includes portions (spacers 700A) which have “a corrugated plate shape” (i.e. a wavy plate shape; see annotation of Fees Fig. 9A, below) in which the plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions are alternately arranged in the array direction, and is sandwiched between two electric power storage devices.
PNG
media_image6.png
468
740
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Fees Fig. 9A.
Since the instant specification does not indicate that the entire side plate is located between adjacent power storage devices (i.e. the projections 114 of the side plate 112 are not sandwiched between adjacent power storage devices; see instant Fig. 6), it is broadly and reasonably interpreted that only a portion of the side plate is required to be sandwiched between two electric power storage devices. Modified Fees renders obvious that a portion of the side plate (spacer 700A) is sandwiched between two electric power storage devices (i.e. between two cell layers; see Fees: Fig. 10). Each of the plurality of containers of one electric power storage device is fitted into each of the concave portions as viewed from one main surface of the side plate, and each of the plurality of containers of another electric power storage device is fitted into each of the convex portions as viewed from the one main surface from a back side of the side plate (see annotation of Fess Fig. 9A, below).
PNG
media_image7.png
445
491
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Fees Fig. 9A.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Fees renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the cylindrical battery cells are accommodated within a film outer covering body (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Fees does not explicitly teach that the film outer covering body is elongated in a zigzag manner which being refracted or curved between adjacent containers.
Kazuto teaches that the laminate battery continuous body can, advantageously, be easily assembled by arranging the laminate battery single bodies in a row and folding the laminate battery single bodies in a zigzag manner [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the film outer covering body in a zigzag manner with a reasonable expectation that a film outer covering body formed in a zigzag manner would result in a successful battery module which is easily assembled. By forming the film outer covering body in a zigzag manner, the film outer covering body is necessarily “refracted or curved” between adjacent containers.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Fees renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the side plate is in direct contact with each of the pair of projections (see rejection of Claim 1, above, and annotation of Fees Fig. 14A, below).
PNG
media_image8.png
400
793
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Fees Fig. 14A
Regarding Claim 11, modified Fees renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Fees renders obvious that the upper edge of the side plate includes a convex portion which is fit into the first groove (see rejection of Claim 1, above), modified Fees renders obvious “wherein an edge of the side plate extending along the array direction is fitted into the first groove”. Here, the “edge” is interpreted as the upper edge of the side plate wherein the convex portion is provided.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Fees renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Since modified Fees renders obvious that the reinforcing member (bottom plate 1400A) has a flat, rectangular shape, the limitation “wherein the reinforcing member is in a rod shape” is interpreted as being met (see 112(b) rejection, above).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fees et al. (US-20200052260-A1; cited in IDS filed 05/30/2025) in view of Kazuto et al. (JP-2010108794-A; see Applicant provided NPL filed 05/30/2025 for citations) and in view of Ju et al. (US-20180183119-A1) as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Hofer et al. (US-20150236315-A1) and Newman et al. (US-20190229309-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Fees renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Fees renders obvious that the first groove is formed along the side plate and the reinforcing member in order to fixedly couple the two structures (see rejection of Claim 1, above; [Ju: 0038, 0051]). Modified Fees does not teach that the first groove has a corrugated shape.
Hofer and Newman both teach that a battery module containing cylindrical cells can include a housing which closely matches the shape of the cylindrical cells (see Hofer Fig. 1 and Newman Fig. 4A). Such a configuration results in a side plate with a corrugated shape (see annotations, below).
PNG
media_image9.png
734
1687
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Left: Hofer Fig. 1; Right: Newman Fig. 4A
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that forming the housing of the battery module of modified Fees to closely match the shape of the cylindrical cells would result in a successful battery module since a change in shape normally only requires ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that forming the battery module to closely match the shape of the cylindrical cells would result in a battery module which requires less space.
By forming the module to have a housing which closely matches the shape of the cylindrical cells, the side plate (which forms a part of the housing) would necessarily have a corrugated shape. Therefore, since the first groove is formed to match the shape of the side plate such that the side plate can be fixedly attached to the reinforcing member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the first groove to have a corrugated shape with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful connection between the side plate and the reinforcing member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 8, modified Fees renders obvious the limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Fees discloses that the side plate (external frame component 420) is initially placed between jigs, and then a cell layer is stacked onto the side plate [0029-0031]. Spacers (700A) are added between cell layers, and once a desired number of cell layers are constructed, another external frame component and opposing sidewalls are attached and the jigs are removed [0032-0036]. As such, Fees does not teach the limitation “wherein the holder is formed of one plate”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to have formed the holder (i.e. the combination of the side plate and the projections) to be “of one plate” since the process of assembling a battery module disclosed by Fees requires the side plate to be assembled separate from the sidewalls (which read on the projections). Accordingly, forming the holder of one plate would require a different battery assembly process than that disclosed by Fees.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As an initial matter, the Examiner disputes the summary of the conversation with Brian Roberts on 09/25/2025. During this conversation, the Examiner noted that if Applicant feels that a reference from the IDS should have been considered, Applicant can include arguments noting which documents should have been considered. The Examiner notes that no agreement was reached as to whether a document was erroneously crossed out, and that no specific details regarding the previous office action were discussed, since the conversation was not conducted with an attorney or agent of record. Additionally, the Examiner disputes the characterization of the conversation as an interview, noting that no interview agenda was provided, no interview summary was submitted by the Office, no specific details of the application were discussed, and the conversation was not conducted with an attorney or agent of record. After further review of the documents cited in the IDS filed 02/09/2023, the Examiner agrees that the noted International Search Report was included in the English language. Accordingly, the International Search Report has been considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Claim 1 (Remarks Pg. 7), Applicant has argued that the cited references fail to teach the feature “the reinforcing member includes a surface facing the holder, the first groove is disposed on the surface facing the holder, the reinforcing member is arranged together with the holder via the side plate fitted in the first groove”. Applicant submits that the alleged side plate 420 is arranged between the jigs 405-410, and therefore the side plate 420 would not be able to fit into the first groove disposed on the surface of the reinforcing member.
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the jigs are removed from the battery module as shown in Fees Fig. 13 [0036]. Although Fees refers to these structures as “jig towers 1305-1310” [0036], these jig towers are understood to include the jigs 405-410 referenced by the Applicant. Annotations of Figs. 4 and 13 are included below to clarify the relationship between the jigs and the battery module.
PNG
media_image10.png
661
1814
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Fig. 4 (Left) and Fig. 13 (Right)
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/11/2026