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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 07/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al. (JP 2018073551, cited on IDS filed 01/29/24).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses (via annot. fig. 2 below) a battery module (1) comprising a plurality of units (3; see also fig. 3) arranged side by side in a first direction (y-dir.); and a restraint member (bus bar case 2) that restrains the plurality of units in the first direction (per below; see also integral connection of modules 3—and, thus, restraint in y-dir.—¶ 0014; further note that bus bar case 2 wraps around and is fastened to end plate (per below) and, thus, additionally supports in y-dir.), wherein each of the plurality of units includes a plurality of battery cells arranged side by side in the first direction (per below and fig. 3), each of the plurality of battery cells having a prismatic shape (Id.), and a case (4) that accommodates the plurality of battery cells and that supports the plurality of battery cells in the first direction (Id.; because case 4 also includes fixing side walls and end plates (figs. 2 and 3), the case would further seemingly support the cells in the y-dir.).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Inoue discloses the battery module according to claim 1, wherein the case is compressed in the first direction by the restraint member (necessarily by bus bar case 2’s wrapping around and fastening to end plate, fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Inoue discloses the battery module according to claims 1 and 2, wherein each of the plurality of battery cells has two electrode terminals arranged side by side along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (terminals 30a/b extending in z-dir., figs. 2 and 3), and the case supports the plurality of battery cells in the second direction (by holding the cells (fig. 3), the case would support the cells in the z-dir.).
Regarding claims 5–8, Inoue discloses the battery module according to claims 1–4, further comprising a bus bar (5 of fig. 2) that electrically connects the plurality of battery cells together (e.g., figs. 2 and 3, ¶ 0013, 0026, 0027).
Regarding claims 9–16, Inoue discloses the battery module according to claims 1–8, further comprising a wiring member (detection member 6 with voltage detection wire, figs. 2 and 3) electrically connected to the plurality of units (Id., ¶ 0030 and 0031), wherein the wiring member includes at least one voltage detection wire that detects a voltage (Id.), and the at least one voltage detection wire is disposed in each of the plurality of units (Id.).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2018073551, cited on IDS filed 01/29/24), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yamakawa et al. (JP 2017182969).
Regarding claim 17, Inoue discloses the battery module according to claim 1, wherein each of the units includes two or more battery cells (figs. 2 and 3). Inoue further desires high output (¶ 0004) but fails to explicitly articulate the value of such and, thus that each of the two or more battery cells has an output density of 8000 W/L or more.
Yamakawa teaches a high-output-density secondary battery (Abstract) with an output density of 40,000 W/L (¶ 0057).
Yamakawa and Inoue are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery output characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that each of Inoue's cells must necessarily exhibit some output density when (dis)charged, and, as demonstrated by Yamakawa, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate each cell with an output density of 40,000 W/L, falling within ≥ 8000 W/L.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/053132 (reference application, published as US 2023155198). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Ref. claims 1 and 11 together encompass instant claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/053132 (reference application, published as US 2023155198), as applied to claim 1 above in view of Yamakawa et al. (JP 2017182969 A). Ref. claims 1 and 11’s plurality of cells read on instant claim 17 besides articulating an output density for each cell.
Yamakawa teaches a high-output-density secondary battery (Abstract) with an output density of 40,000 W/L (¶ 0057).
Yamakawa and the ref. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery output characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that each of the ref.’s cells must necessarily exhibit some output density when (dis)charged, and, as demonstrated by Yamakawa, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate each cell with an output density of 40,000 W/L, falling within ≥ 8000 W/L.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/054940 (reference application, published as US 20230155228). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Ref. claim 1 encompasses instant claim 1. Further, ref. claim 6 reads on instant claim 17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2013098982 A1: similar disclosure as Inoue, with battery units connected and anchored by side bands.
US 20230344060 A1: battery modules linked by connecting members on end plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-5pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 5712727769. 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.
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/31/2025