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 Amendment
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on August 6th, 2025:
Claims 1 and 3-6 and 8-9 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 and 3-6 have been amended and claims 2 and 7 have been cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the contents from the cancelled claims 2 and 7 and include “a plurality of structures”.
Claims 3-6 have been amended to depend from claim 1 instead of claim 2.
Status of Objections and Rejections from the Office Action of May 7th, 2025
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been upheld in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6th, 2025, in the Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sasaki is a ternary reference, used in combination with Nishide and Hama, and therefore, is not solely relied upon for the rejections regarding the structures above the first surface of the power generating element having insulating properties, with a gap located between the first main surface and the laminate film, but rather in combination with the primary and secondary references.
The structure of Sasaki was not relied upon to read upon being located between the first main surface and the laminate film, Nishide was relied up to read on a structure located above the top surface of the power generating element and between a sheet material [Nishide, 0033]. Sasaki was relied upon to read on the structures being made of an electrically insulating material [Sasaki, 0005], the gaps between the protrusions and the battery casing, and to provide the laminate film. While applicant argues the justification of modifying Nishide with the laminate material of Sasaki to read on the laminate film, due to there being no need or suggestion to isolate the electrode from the outer laminate, that can be considered a preferred embodiment, because through the modification with Sasaki, a good workability for the battery assembly can be obtained through the displacement suppression Sasaki can provide [Sasaki, 0001 & 0013].
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Muraki teaches a power storage device, wherein said device can be affected by and may not recover from the deformation [Muraki, 0012]. When a power storage device is used or stored in a high temperature environment, the power storage device expands and an internal pressure is applied to the packing material, so by controlling the elongation expansion of the substrate layer, deformation of the power storage device can be prevented. This is done through a creep test, with a length of the packing material is 20 mm, corresponding to L of the claim, and a TD and MD elongation is less than 3 mm, corresponding to the Elf of the claim, therefore, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the property of X > L x (1 + (Elf/100)) by adjusting the battery length and controlling the tensile elongation in order to optimize the creepage distance to obtain a battery capable of withstanding any expansion pressure or deformation of the power storage device [Muraki, 0081].
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, 3-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide, JP 2006049054 A (already on the record), Hama, JP 2016018704 A (already on the record), Sasaki, JP 2013045715 A (already on the record) and Muraki, US 20220376330 A1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishide teaches a battery (Nishide, 10; Figure 2) with a power generating element (Nishide, 12; Figure 2) [Nishide, 0024], comprising both the positive (Nishide, 14; Figure 2) and negative (Nishide, 16; Figure 2)[Nishide, 0027] electrodes wherein the electrolyte is between the electrode bodies [Nishide, 0028]. Furthermore, a structure (Nishide, 18; Figure 2) is located above the top surface, corresponding to the claimed main surface, of the power generating element and are laminated in sheet materials (Nishide, 22; Figure 2) [Nishide, 0033], wherein there is a plurality of convex portions (Nishide, 30; Figure 2) on the structure (Nishide, 18; Figure 2), this plurality of convex portions corresponds to the plurality of structures in claim, wherein there can be seen a gap between two adjacent convex portions in figure 2 of Nishide. Nishide is silent to teach on the electrolyte being solid, the structure having insulating properties, the gap between the first main surface and the laminate film, or the battery satisfying X > L x (1+Elf/100).
Hama teaches on a solid-state battery (Hama, A; Figure 1) comprising a solid electrolyte layer (Hama, 13; Figure 1) disposed between the positive (Hama, 11; Figure 1) and negative electrode (Hama, 12; Figure 1)[Hama, 0006].
Hama and Nishide are considered analogous arts in the areas of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Nishide to include the solid electrolyte layer taught by Hama because such modification would suppress swelling of the battery and increase ion conductivity [Hama, 0003].
Sasaki teaches a battery comprising a power generating element consisting of a corrugated structure with groove and ridges [Sasaki, 0005], wherein a sheet-like member with a corrugated structure is made of an electrically insulating material [Sasaki, 0012] and have gaps between the convex protrusions (Sasaki, 31; Figure 50 and the battery casing (Sasaki, 1 (BC); Figure 4), corresponding to the laminate film of within the claim.
Sasaki and Nishide are considered analogous arts in the areas of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Nishide to include the electrically insulating material of the sheet-like member taught by Sasaki for the structure of Nishide, because such modification would provide insulation between the power generating element and the housing [Sasaki, 0012], and therefore maintain a good workability for the battery [Sasaki, 0013] and minimize the relative displacement between the housing and power generating element [Sasaki, 0001].
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Nishide to include the gaps in between the convex protrusions and the battery casing, as taught by Sasaki for the structure of Nishide, because such modification would suppress the displacement of the power generating element within and maintain good battery assembly workability [Sasaki, 0013].
Muraki teaches a power storage device package material, which can be affected by and may not recover from the deformation [Muraki, 0012], so the substrate layer (Muraki, 11; Figure 1) is subjected to a creep test with a length of the packing material is 20 mm, corresponding to L of the claim, and a TD and MD elongation is less than 3 mm [Muraki, 0081], corresponding to the Elf of the claim.
While neither Nishide or Muraki explicitly teach the battery satisfying X > L x (1+Elf/100), Muraki teaches when a power storage device is used or stored in a high temperature environment, the power storage device expands and an internal pressure is applied to the packing material, so by controlling the elongation expansion of the substrate layer deformation of the power storage device can be prevented. This is done through a creep test, with a length of the packing material is 20 mm, corresponding to L of the claim, and a TD and MD elongation is less than 3 mm, corresponding to the Elf of the claim, therefore, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the property of X > L x (1 + (Elf/100)) by adjusting the battery length and controlling the tensile elongation in order to optimize the creepage distance to obtain a battery capable of withstanding any expansion pressure or deformation of the power storage device [Muraki, 0081].
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Nishide teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the projections (the concave-convex portions) on the structure may have a shape other than a circle, and may be arranged in a lattice or staggered pattern [Nishide, 0041], either which could be a rectangular parallelepiped shape, reading on the requirement of the claim.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Nishide teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the structure (Nishide, 18; Figure 1) has convex portions (Nishide, 50; Figure 4) that protrude towards the sheet material (Nishide, 22; Figure 2) as shown in figure 2 of Nishide.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Nishide teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the concave convex portions of the structure are arranged in a matrix in plain view of the power generating element, depicted in figure 2 and 4 of Nishide.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Nishide teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the structure (Nishide, 18; Figure 4) are spaced apart from each other and arranged in a stripe pattern as shown in figure 4 of Nishide.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Nishide teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte layer is a solid electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity, such as sulfide, oxides, nitrides, and halides, but not limited to [Sasaki, 0039].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Nishide teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein there is another structure (Nishide, 20; Figure 2) is located below the bottom surface, corresponding to the claimed second main surface, of the power generating element comprising a plurality of concave-convex shapes, and is opposite to the first main surface, as shown in figure 2 of Nishide.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722