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 .
Priority
As provided in the Office Action dated September 25, 2025: Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on June 30, 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2020/099430 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Thus, a certified copy is required.
Response to Amendment
In Applicant’s response dated December 12, 2025, Claims 1-13 and 20 are amended. Claims 14-19 are canceled. Claims 1-13 and 20 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
The rejections below are modified from those provided in the Office Action dated September 25, 2025 as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Applicant’s amended drawings are accepted, and the Drawing Objection in the recited Office Action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 20 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 20 recites “an outer packaging” in line 3 and again in line 4, making it unclear if a second outer packaging is claimed. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has considered the second recitation as “the outer packaging”.
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) 1-4, 12-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams [US5254415A] in view of Mori [WO2019230323A1], both provided previously.
Regarding Claim 1, Williams discloses an electrochemical apparatus [Williams abstract and throughout, bipolar battery], comprising a partition plate [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, partition plate 26A/32A/30N/24N], a first laminated electrode assembly [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, 14N including 28N, 26N, 32N and 18, see modified Fig. 1 below], a second laminated electrode assembly [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, 14A including 28A, 24A, 30A, and 16, see modified Fig. 1 below], and an outer packaging [Williams abstract, columns 3, 5-8, and throughout, Fig. 1, layer 36, 38], wherein the partition plate is hermetically connected to the outer packaging to form a first sealed chamber and a second sealed chamber separated on two sides of the partition plate [Williams abstract, columns 2-3, and throughout, Fig. 1, The electrochemical apparatus includes partition plate 26/32/30/24, which is hermetically connected to the outer packaging; each assembly is sealed by the insulating layer 36 combined with the metal layer 38.]; the first sealed chamber contains the first laminated electrode assembly and a first electrolyte [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, 14N with first electrolyte in 28N], and the second sealed chamber contains the second laminated electrode assembly and a second electrolyte [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, 14A with second electrolyte in 28A],
wherein the partition plate comprises a partition substrate, a positive electrode membrane, a negative electrode membrane [Williams columns 5-6, and throughout, Fig. 1, substrate 30/32, positive electrode membrane 26A, negative electrode membrane 24N, see modified Fig. 1 below],
wherein the positive electrode membrane and the negative electrode membrane are respectively located on two surfaces of the partition substrate [Williams column 5-6, and throughout, see modified Fig. 1],
a positive electrode plate of the first laminated electrode assembly is opposite to the negative electrode membrane of the partition plate [Williams column 5, Fig. 1, See modified Fig. 1 below where Williams is modified such that there are only two assemblies. Positive electrode plate 18 and/or 32N of assembly 14N is opposite to the negative electrode membrane 24N of the partition plate 26A/32A/30N/24N.],
a negative electrode plate of the second laminated electrode assembly is opposite to the positive electrode membrane of the partition plate [Williams Fig. 1, See modified Fig. 1 below where Williams is modified such that there are only two assemblies. Negative electrode plate 16 of assembly 14A is opposite to the positive electrode membrane 26A of the partition plate 26A/32A/30N/24N.];
a positive tab and a negative tab of both the first laminated electrode assembly and the second laminated electrode assembly are extended out of the outer packaging [Williams Fig. 1, positive tab 22 of the first assembly and negative tab 20 of the second assembly are external to the outer packaging]; and the first laminated electrode assembly and the second laminated electrode assembly are connected in series through the positive tab and the negative tab [Williams column 1, 5, 8 and Fig. 1, Further, Fig. 1 shows series connection.]
PNG
media_image1.png
485
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 modified to show only two assemblies N and A
Williams is silent to an insulation layer disposed at a periphery of the positive electrode membrane and a zone surrounded by orthographic projection of an outer edge of the insulation layer on the partition substrate covers orthographic projection of the negative electrode membrane on the partition substrate.
Mori discloses an electrochemical cell [Mori abstract and throughout, a battery] with a partition plate including a partition substrate, a positive electrode membrane, a negative electrode membrane, and an insulation layer [Mori 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4];
wherein, the positive electrode membrane and the negative electrode membrane are respectively located on two surfaces of the partition substrate[Mori abstract, 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4]; the insulation layer is disposed on the partition substrate and the insulation layer is disposed at a periphery of the positive electrode membrane [Mori abstract, 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4]; and a zone surrounded by orthographic projection of an outer edge of the insulation layer on the partition substrate covers orthographic projection of the negative electrode membrane on the partition substrate [Mori abstract, 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4, Fig. 3 shows the claimed configuration]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to substitute Mori’s partition plate with an insulation layer as described above for Williams partition plate 26A/32A/30N/24N as shown below in modified Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Williams and Mori as described above for a high energy density battery [Mori 0009; Williams column 1] that resist shorting [Mori 0047] and is resistant to electrolyte leakage [Williams column 3 and throughout].
PNG
media_image2.png
527
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, modified Williams discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a negative electrode membrane zone is present in a counterpart of a zone corresponding to the positive electrode membrane on an opposite side of the partition substrate; and a negative electrode membrane zone is present in at least a part of a counterpart of a zone corresponding to the insulation layer on the opposite side of the partition substrate [Where Mori’s partition plate is substituted for Williams’ partition plate as described above: Mori abstract, 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4, Mori Fig. 3 shows the claimed configuration.].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Williams discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 2, wherein an orthographic projection of a geometric center of the positive electrode membrane on the partition substrate coincides with orthographic projection of a geometric center of the negative electrode membrane on the partition substrate, a length in a radiating direction from the geometric center to an outer edge of the positive electrode membrane is L1; and in the same radiating direction, a length from the outer edge of the positive electrode membrane to the outer edge of the insulation layer is D, and a length from the geometric center to an outer edge of the negative electrode membrane is L2, wherein
L1<L2 and L1+D≥L2 [Where Mori’s partition plate is substituted for Williams’ partition plate as described above: Mori 0011-0014, 0030-0032 Fig. 3, The broadest reasonable interpretation of the substitution of Mori’s partition plate as described in claim 1 above is that the conditions are met.].
PNG
media_image3.png
270
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, modified Williams discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the positive electrode membrane and the negative electrode membrane are rectangular [Mori 0022, Fig. 3, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Fig. 3 is the positive electrode membrane 3 and negative electrode membrane 2 are rectangular since Fig. 3 is a cross-section with rectangularly shaped electrode membranes.]. Regarding the claimed limitation
PNG
media_image4.png
37
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein, Lx1 is a length of the positive electrode membrane, Ly1 is a width of the positive electrode membrane, Lx2 is a length of the negative electrode membrane, Ly2 is a width of the negative electrode membrane, Dx is a width of an extension portion of the insulation layer relative to the positive electrode membrane in a long-side direction of the positive electrode membrane, and Dy is a width of an extension portion of the insulation layer relative to the positive electrode membrane in a short-side direction of the positive electrode membrane, Mori discloses the first active material layer 2 covers a first area on the first surface of partition 1, a second active material layer 3 covers a second area on the inner circumferential side of the first area on a second surface of current collector 1, and an electrical insulating layer 4 is applied in a third area adjacent to the second area on the outer circumferential side of the second area [Mori 0019, 0024-0025, 0030], which is shown in Figs. 1-4, and discloses the second active material layer 3 is preferably the positive electrode active material [Mori 0018, 0021 and throughout]. Since Mori discloses Figs. 1-4 relate to the area of coverage of each of the first active material layer, the second active material layer, and the insulating layer, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Mori’s Figs. 1-4 is that they represent the cross-section in both the width direction and the length direction. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the substitution of Mori’s partition plate is that the conditions Lx1<Lx2 and Ly1<Ly2, Lx1/2 +Dx >Lx2/2 and Ly1/2+Dy>Ly2/2 are met as shown in modified Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image5.png
282
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, modified Williams discloses the partition plate according to claim 1, wherein the partition plate satisfies at least one of the following characteristics:
(a) the insulation layer further comprises a binder and the binder accounts for 5% to 40% of the insulation layer by mass;
(b) the insulation layer comprises at least one of HfO2, SrTiO3, SnO2, CeO2,MgO, NiO, CaO, BaO, ZnO, ZrO2, Y203, Al203, TiO2, S102, boehmite, magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, lithium phosphate, lithium titanium phosphate, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate, lithium lanthanum titanate, lithium germanium thiophosphate, lithium nitride, SiS2 glass, P2S5 glass, Li2O, LiF, LiOH, Li2CO3, LiAlO2, lithium germanium phosphorous sulfur ceramics, or garnet ceramics [Mori 0040, Mori discloses the insulation layer is composed of a binder and inorganic oxide particles such as Al203 and ZrO2, which obviates the claim due to b).].
Regarding a) Mori discloses the insulating layer has a mass ratio of insulating layer particles: binder of 10 to 50: 90 to 50; however, this is further dispersed by a dispersion medium. With the addition of a dispersion the binder accounts for some amount less than 50 to 90% of the insulation layer, which either overlaps the claimed range of 5% to 40% or is merely close, which obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are merely close a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the amount of binder is a result effective variable. If there is too much binder, the benefit of the insulating particles would be reduced since the insulating layer will not be sufficiently insulating, which results in an increased shorting risk. If there is too little binder, the insulating material will not adhere to the positive electrode material, which results in an increased shorting risk. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to determine the workable amount of binder through routine optimization by balancing the required insulating properties and the required adhesion of the insulating layer to reduce the shorting risk. See MPEP 2144.05II,B routine optimization. Thus, with the substitution of Mori’s partition plate as described in Claim 1 the claim conditions are met.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Williams discloses the partition plate according to claim 12, wherein the binder comprises at least one of polyamide, polyurethane, ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer, ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, polyacrylate, polyvinylidene fluoride, or polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer [Mori 0040, Mori discloses polyvinylidene fluoride. Thus, with the substitution of Mori’s partition plate as described in Claim 1 the claim conditions are met.].
Regarding Claim 20, Williams discloses an electrochemical apparatus [Williams abstract and throughout, bipolar battery], wherein the electrochemical apparatus comprise a partition plate [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, partition plate 26A/32A/30N/24N], a first laminated electrode assembly [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, 14N including 28N, 26N, 32N and 18, see modified Fig. 1 below], a second laminated electrode assembly [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, 14A including 28A, 24A, 30A, and 16, see modified Fig. 1 below], and an outer packaging [Williams abstract, columns 3, 5-8, and throughout, Fig. 1, layer 36, 38], wherein the partition plate is hermetically connected to the outer packaging to form a first sealed chamber and a second sealed chamber separated on two sides of the partition plate [Williams abstract, columns 2-3, and throughout, Fig. 1, The electrochemical apparatus includes partition plate 26/32/30/24, which is hermetically connected to the outer packaging; each assembly is sealed by the insulating layer 36 combined with the metal layer 38.]; the first sealed chamber contains the first laminated electrode assembly and a first electrolyte [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, 14N with first electrolyte in 28N], and the second sealed chamber contains the second laminated electrode assembly and a second electrolyte [Williams column 5-6 and throughout, Fig. 1, 14A with second electrolyte in 28A],
wherein the partition plate comprises a partition substrate, a positive electrode membrane, a negative electrode membrane [Williams columns 5-6, and throughout, Fig. 1, substrate 30/32, positive electrode membrane 26A, negative electrode membrane 24N, see modified Fig. 1 below],
wherein the positive electrode membrane and the negative electrode membrane are respectively located on two surfaces of the partition substrate [Williams column 5-6, and throughout, see modified Fig. 1],
a positive electrode plate of the first laminated electrode assembly is opposite to the negative electrode membrane of the partition plate [Williams column 5, Fig. 1, See modified Fig. 1 below where Williams is modified such that there are only two assemblies. Positive electrode plate 18 and/or 32N of assembly 14N is opposite to the negative electrode membrane 24N of the partition plate 26A/32A/30N/24N.],
a negative electrode plate of the second laminated electrode assembly is opposite to the positive electrode membrane of the partition plate [Williams Fig. 1, See modified Fig. 1 below where Williams is modified such that there are only two assemblies. Negative electrode plate 16 of assembly 14A is opposite to the positive electrode membrane 26A of the partition plate 26A/32A/30N/24N.];
a positive tab and a negative tab of both the first laminated electrode assembly and the second laminated electrode assembly are extended out of the outer packaging [Williams Fig. 1, positive tab 22 of the first assembly and negative tab 20 of the second assembly are external to the outer packaging]; and the first laminated electrode assembly and the second laminated electrode assembly are connected in series through the positive tab and the negative tab [Williams column 1, 5, 8 and Fig. 1, Further, Fig. 1 shows series connection.]
PNG
media_image1.png
485
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure1 modified to show only two assemblies N and A
Williams is silent to an insulation layer disposed at a periphery of the positive electrode membrane and a zone surrounded by orthographic projection of an outer edge of the insulation layer on the partition substrate covers orthographic projection of the negative electrode membrane on the partition substrate.
Mori discloses an electrochemical cell [Mori abstract and throughout, a battery] with a partition plate including a partition substrate, a positive electrode membrane, a negative electrode membrane, and an insulation layer [Mori 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4];
wherein, the positive electrode membrane and the negative electrode membrane are respectively located on two surfaces of the partition substrate[Mori abstract, 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4]; the insulation layer is disposed on the partition substrate and the insulation layer is disposed at a periphery of the positive electrode membrane [Mori abstract, 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4]; and a zone surrounded by orthographic projection of an outer edge of the insulation layer on the partition substrate covers orthographic projection of the negative electrode membrane on the partition substrate [Mori abstract, 0030-0032, Fig. 3, partition substrate 1, positive electrode membrane 3, negative electrode membrane 2, insulation layer 4, Fig. 3 shows the claimed configuration]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to substitute Mori’s partition plate with an insulation layer as described above for Williams partition plate 26A/32A/30N/24N as shown below in modified Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Williams and Mori as described above for a high energy density battery [Mori 0009; Williams column 1] that resist shorting [Mori 0047] and is resistant to electrolyte leakage [Williams column 3 and throughout]. Though modified Williams is silent to an electronic apparatus comprising the electrochemical apparatus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of modified Williams’ electrochemical apparatus in that it is for use in an electronic apparatus; therefore, the claim limitations are met.
PNG
media_image2.png
527
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Uchida [US20130130107A1] provided previously.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Williams discloses the partition plate according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein an electrical resistivity of the insulation layer is greater than 107Ωm. Uchida discloses an insulating film 120 formed on a positive electrode active material layer 114 formed on a plate 112 [Uchida 0055 and throughout, Fig. 2]wherein an electrical resistivity of the insulation layer is greater than 107Ωm [Uchida 0058, Uchida discloses electrical resistivity of an insulation layer made with the following ceramic particle types, which overlap and obviate the claimed range: approximately 1020 Ω·m for alumina (Al2O3), approximately 1018 μΩ·m for silicon nitride (Si3N4), approximately 1015 μΩ·m for aluminum nitride (AlN) and approximately 1018 μΩ·m for diamond-like carbon (DLC). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Uchida’s disclosed electrical resistivity for the insulating layer of Mori partition plate for use in modified Williams’ high energy density battery of claim 1 with an insulating layer with sufficient electrical resistivity/insulation to prevent shorting [Williams column 1, Mori 0008, 0047; Uchida 0014 and throughout].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Williams, as applied to claim 1-3 above, in further view of Kim et al [US20150147629A1] provided previously, hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Williams discloses the partition plate according to claim 3 but is silent to wherein the partition plate satisfies at least one of the following characteristics:
PNG
media_image6.png
50
212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim discloses a partition plate with an insulation layer 160 disposed adjacent to a positive electrode membrane 120 [Kim 0024-0031, Fig. 3, partition substrate 130, positive electrode membrane 120, negative electrode membrane 140, insulation layer 160], where D is 1 mm to 20 mm, which overlaps and obviates limitation b, making the claim obvious). Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kim’s recited width of the insulation layer with the partition plate for a battery of modified Williams with an expectation of a partition plate with sufficient thickness of the insulating layer to prevent shorting [Mori 0008, 0047; Kim 0025].
Further regarding b), the skilled artisan would know that the width D of the insulation layer is a result effective variable. If the width D is too thin, there will be insufficient insulation to prevent shorting. If the width D is too thick, there is not enough exposed portion on the tab for electrical connection to the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a workable range for the insulation layer width by routine experimentation in consideration of having sufficient insulation to prevent shorting and enough exposed portion of the tab for electrical connection, both of which would be customized to the required battery characteristics, such as battery size, energy density, etc. See MPEP 2144.05II,B routine optimization.
For purpose of compact prosecution regarding limitation a):
The skilled artisan would know from the teachings of Mori the claim limitation a) is a result effective variable, which would be customized according to the requirements for the battery. Mori teaches that a L1<L2 as described in Claim 3 above and teaches that the insulation layer surrounding the circumferential area around the positive active material layer can prevent cracks, slippages, and wrinkles from occurring at the ends of the electrode active material layers [Mori 0014, 0016, 0020, 0047]. Therefore, it would be obvious that there should not be any area of either electrode active material on each of the sides of the partition plate that faces an exposed area, or in other words L1 + D -L2 must be greater than 0 mm. Further, if L1 + D -L2 is too large, then either there may be insufficient exposed area of the tab for forming electrical contact or the width of the negative electrode active material may be too thin for the required energy density of the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the workable range for L1 + D -L2 through routine experimentation in consideration of balancing the requirements of sufficiently structurally supporting each of the electrode active material coverage areas, a sufficient area for electrical contact to the electrode tabs, and sufficient energy density for the application. See MPEP 2144.05II,B routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Williams discloses the partition plate according to claim 3, but is silent to wherein the partition plate satisfies at least one of the following characteristics:
an electrical resistivity of the insulation layer is greater than 1010 Ωm;
PNG
media_image7.png
55
219
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kim discloses a partition plate with an insulation layer 160 disposed adjacent to a positive electrode membrane 120 [Kim 0024-0031, Fig. 3, partition substrate 130, positive electrode membrane 120, negative electrode membrane 140, insulation layer 160], where D is 1 mm to 20 mm, which overlaps and obviates limitation c). Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kim’s recited width of the insulation layer with the partition plate for a battery of modified Williams with an expectation of a partition plate with sufficient thickness of the insulating layer to prevent shorting [Mori 0008, 0047; Kim 0025].
Further, the skilled artisan would know that the width D of the insulation layer is a result effective variable. If the width D is too thin, there will be insufficient insulation to prevent shorting. If the width D is too thick, there is not enough exposed portion on the tab for electrical connection to the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a workable range for the insulation layer width by routine experimentation in consideration of having sufficient insulation to prevent shorting and enough exposed portion of the tab for electrical connection, both of which would be customized to the required battery characteristics, such as battery size, energy density, etc. See MPEP 2144.05II,B routine optimization.
For purpose of compact prosecution, regarding limitation b):
Further, the skilled artisan would know from the teachings of Mori the claim limitation b) is a result effective variable, which would be customized according to the requirements for the battery. Mori teaches that a L1<L2 as described in Claim 3 above. Mori further teaches that the insulation layer surrounding the circumferential area around the positive active material layer can prevent cracks, slippages, and wrinkles from occurring at the ends of the electrode active material layers [Mori 0014, 0016, 0020, 0047]. Therefore, it would be obvious that there should not be any area of either electrode active material on each of the sides of the partition plate that faces an exposed area, or in other words L1 + D -L2 must be greater than 0 mm. Further, if L1 + D -L2 is too large, then either there may be insufficient exposed area of the tab for forming electrical contact or the width of the negative electrode active material may be too thin for the required energy density of the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the workable range for L1 + D -L2 through routine experimentation in consideration of balancing the requirements of sufficiently structurally supporting each of the electrode active material coverage areas, a sufficient area for electrical contact to the electrode tabs, and sufficient energy density for the application. See MPEP 2144.05II,B routine optimization.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Motoyoshi et al. [JP2018028980A], previously provided, hereinafter Motoyoshi.
Regarding Claim 8 and 9, modified Williams discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the partition plate further comprises a sealing layer, the sealing layer is located at a periphery of the partition plate [Williams column 6-9, Fig. 1 and throughout, sealing layer 36 with 38]. Williams is silent to a distance between the insulation layer and the sealing layer is D3, wherein 0 mm≤D3≤20 mm (claim 8) or 2 mm≤D3≤5mm (claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing that the distance D3 is a result effective variable. The minimum distance between the insulating layer and the sealing layer cannot be less than 0 mm. However, for a sealing layer that is not coated directly on the insulating layer, the distance between the sealing layer and the insulating layer can be more than 0 mm, as evidenced by Motoyoshi [Motoyoshi Figs. 2, 4, 5]. Further, the skilled artisan would know that some distance may be required in consideration of factors such as the properties of materials used to make the partition plate, the current collectors, the sealing members, etc., (such as the fragility, elasticity, expansion, contraction, etc. during operation) and other design considerations. Motoyoshi discloses a bipolar battery a partition plate 44, a positive electrode membrane 43, and a negative membrane 45 on the opposite side of the partition plate [Motoyoshi Figs. 2, 4, 5]. Motoyoshi further discloses an insulating layer 55 disposed on the periphery of the positive electrode membrane 43 [Motoyoshi Figs. 2, 4, 5] and a sealing layer 42 on the periphery of the partition plate. Motoyoshi does not discloses the distance between the sealing layer 42 and the insulating layer 55; however, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Motoyoshi Figs. 2, 4, and 5 is that there is some distance between the insulating layer 55 and the sealing layer 42 that is greater than 0 mm. With Motoyoshi’s disclosure of a sealing member spaced a distance away from the insulating layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a workable distance between the sealing member and the insulating layer through routine experimentation by balancing design considerations as described above with minimizing the distance in consideration of efficiently using space within the battery for the purpose of battery energy density, which can be applied to the battery of modified Williams for a high energy density battery [Mori 0009; Williams column 1] as described above. See MPEP 2144.05II,B, routine optimization.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Han [US20090092898A1, previously provided].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Williams discloses the partition plate according to claim 1 wherein the insulation layer comprises ceramic particles [Mori 0040] but is silent to an average particle size of the ceramic particles is 10 nm to 20 µm, porosity of the insulation layer is 10% to 60%, and an average pore diameter of the insulation layer is 20 nm to 50 µm. Han discloses a partition plate 40 with a positive electrode coated portion 11 and a negative coated electrode portion 12 where an insulating layer 30 is applied to the sides of the positive electrode active material 11 [Han 0047, Fig. 1]. Han’s insulating layer 30 is formed of insulating ceramic particles with an average particle size of 0.1 µm to 0.7 µm (100 nm to 700 nm), which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of 10 nm to 20 µm [Han 0039]. Han’s pore diameter is 40 nm to 200 nm [Han 0039], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of 20 nm to 50 µm. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Han’s teachings about the particle size and pore diameter of the ceramic particles with Mori’s or Kim’s partition plate with an expectation of success for a partition plate with an insulating layer with sufficient electrical resistivity/insulation to prevent shorting [Mori 0008, 0047; Kim 0004, 0014-0016; Han 0014].
Han discloses high porosity and the motivation for high porosity [Han 0014] but is silent to the amount of porosity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that porosity of the ceramic particles is a result effect variable. If the porosity is too low, the injection speed of the electrolyte will be lowered due to a lower absorption of electrolyte in the ceramic particles [Han 0014]. If the porosity is too high, the insulating layer will have gaps, making it less insulating and less sturdy, which could lead to shorting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Han’s teachings about porosity to determine the workable porosity range through routine experimentation by balancing the absorption of electrolyte [Han 0014] with the electrical insulation and strength properties of the insulating layer [Mori 0008, 0047; Han 0014]. See MPEP 2144.05II, B, routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Williams further modified by Han discloses the partition plate according to claim 10, wherein the insulation layer satisfies at least one of the following characteristics: (a) the average particle size of the insulation ceramic particles is 100 nm to 10 µm [Han 0039, Han discloses 100 nm to 0.7 µm, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range.] and (c) the average pore diameter of the insulation layer is 200 nm to 20 µm [Han 0039, Han’s pore diameter is 40 nm to 200 nm, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of 200 nm to 50 µm.]. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, as described in claim 10, the claimed porosity b) is a result effective variable, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II,B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments combined with arguments, see pgs. 8-11 of Remarks, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the anticipation rejections over Mori, Han, and Kim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous anticipation and obviousness rejections have been withdrawn. However, the previously provided prior art was reconsidered for all that is taught. Williams connects a partition plate with two electrode assemblies such that an output voltage is the sum of the voltages [Williams column 5], Williams discloses series connections [Williams columns 1 and 8], and Williams Fig. 1 is an electrochemical apparatus connected in series. Therefore, Williams in view of Mori was found to read on the limitations of claims 1-4, 12-13 and 20, as provided above. Further, modified Williams in view of other previously provided prior art makes claims 5-11 obvious, as provided above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights