DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claim 1 is pending and is examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0006 says
An electricity storage module provided by an aspect of the present disclosure includes a plurality of electricity storage cells disposed arrayed in one direction, a plurality of resin frames disposed between a pair of the electricity storage cells adjacent to each other in the one direction, and a bus bar module disposed on the electricity storage cells and the resin frames.
Later description and the instant figure of the resin frames, however, do not appear to teach a plurality of resin frames disposed between a single pair of the [cells]. Rather, it seems that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a single resin frame is disposed between a single pair of cells. See e.g. instant Fig. 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation including “cells disposed arrayed in one direction” is objected to because the natural reading involves two verbs (disposed, arrayed), and even if “arrayed” is interpreted as an adjective, it is not clear how it further delimits the claims—can cells be “disposed” either arrayed or un-arrayed? or is any disposition an array? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint regards as the invention.
The limitation “a plurality of resin frames disposed between a pair of the electricity storage cells adjacent to each other in the one direction” is indefinite because it is unclear what the numbering and relationship of the plurality of resin frames is to the array of cells stacked in one direction. Does Applicant intend a plurality of resin frames disposed between a single pair? A plurality because each pair? A one-to-one relationship? N+1 frames for N cells? The claim has been interpreted broadly to require a plurality of resin frames and a plurality of cells, with at least one frame between at least one pair of cells.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aizawa (US 2018/0151859 to Aizawa).
Regarding Claim 1, Aizawa teaches:
an energy storage module comprising a plurality of cells 2 arrayed in a first direction and a plurality of resin frames 21 disposed between each pair of cells (Fig. 4, ¶ 0027)
PNG
media_image1.png
716
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
642
823
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a bus bar module disposed on the cells and the resin frames, each of the cells having a pair of external terminals, and bus bars 16 connecting adjacent cells (Fig. 9, ¶ 0030)
PNG
media_image3.png
756
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a bus bar case 6 configured to hold the bus bars, each of the resin frames including a retaining portion 26 configured to retain the bus bar case 6 (Fig. 4, ¶ 0037)
the bus bar case 6 including a retained portion interfacing with the retaining portion 26 and biasing portions on the opposite wall biasing the bus bar toward a side of the retained portion when the bus bar case is positioned on the frames 21 (Fig. 9, showing a variety of potentially identifiable “biasing portions” including portions of the opposite wall, projections 34, etc.; see ¶ 0044-0046, 0050-0051)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723