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 IV (claims 6 and 10) in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups I, II, III, and V, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauli (DE 102012018048 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ohta et al. (US 2020/0328428) (Ohta) (of record).
Regarding claim 6, Pauli discloses a battery module (1) (title; abstract) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (3) (see Figs. 2, 3, and 5; [0024]); a retraining member (2) which includes a fixing portion (9) configured to fix each of the battery cells (3) and to retrain the plurality of battery cells (3) in a state where the plurality of battery cells (3) are arranged in a manner of being not in contact with one another in a laminate direction (see Figs. 3 and 5; [0024]); and an elastic member (13) formed of a foamable material and filled between the battery cells (3) among the plurality of battery cells (3) arranged in the laminate direction (see Fig. 5; [0026]). Pauli further discloses that the battery cells (3) use lithium-ion technology ([0012]-[0013]; [0022]). Pauli fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the battery cells (3) are solid-state battery cells.
However, it is known in the art to configure battery cells as solid-state batteries. For instance, Ohta teaches a battery cell (1A) which uses lithium-ion technology (see Fig. 6; [0043]; [0063]-[0066]; [0072]-[0077]; [0081]; [0085]). Ohta further teaches that the battery cell (1A) is a solid-state battery (title; abstract; [0085]) which has improved yield, initial performance, deterioration characteristics, and energy density ([0008]; [0029]; [0096]; [0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the battery cells disclosed by Pauli to be solid-state battery cells, as taught by Ohta, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to an improvement in the battery’s yield, initial performance, deterioration characteristics, and energy density.
Regarding claim 11, modified Pauli discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Modified Pauli further discloses that the elastic member (Pauli: 13) is filled in a first region including a space between the battery cells (Pauli: 3) among the plurality of battery cells (Pauli: 3) arranged in the laminate direction (see Modified Figure 5 below; [0026]), and the battery module (Pauli: 1) further comprises a potting material (Pauli: 4) filled in a second region adjacent to the first region and having thermal conductivity (see Modified Figure 5 below; [0007]; [0022]; [0025]).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5, Pauli
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauli (DE 102012018048 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ohta et al. (US 2020/0328428) (Ohta) (of record) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0194041) (Park).
Regarding claim 10, modified Pauli discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Modified Pauli further discloses that the elastic member (Pauli: 13) can be made of PP foam (Pauli: [0009]; [0013]). However, modified Pauli fails to explicitly disclose that the elastic member (Pauli: 13) has a closed-cell structure.
However, it is known in the art to configure foams between adjacent battery cells in a battery module to have a closed-cell structure. For instance, Park teaches a similar battery module (100) comprising a plurality of battery cells (102) and an elastic member (105) filled between the battery cells (102) (see Fig. 1; [0021]). Park further teaches that the elastic member (105) can be made of PP foam and can have a closed-cell structure ([0025]). Park further teaches that this elastic member (105) can contribute to improved cycle life of the battery through pressure regulation (abstract; [0001]-[0005]; [0019]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least tried configuring the elastic member disclosed by modified Pauli to have a closed-cell structure, as taught by Park, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so could contribute to improved cycle life of the battery.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauli (DE 102012018048 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ohta et al. (US 2020/0328428) (Ohta) (of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0181727) (Park).
Regarding claim 12, modified Pauli discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Modified Pauli further discloses that the first region is located in an area between adjacent battery cells (Pauli: 3) while the second region is located in an area including the sealing portions (Pauli: 7) of the individual battery cells (Pauli: 3) (see Modified Figure 5 above). Modified Pauli fails to disclose, however, that the battery module (Pauli: 1) further includes a separator configured to partition the first region and the second region.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Park teaches a similar battery module (100) including a plurality of battery cells (120) (see Fig. 4; [0056]). Park further teaches that the battery module (100) includes a separator (130) that partitions a first region including an area between adjacent battery cells (120) and a second region including the sealing portions (123) of individual battery cells (120) (see Figs. 4, 6, 9, and 10; [0056]-[0057]). Park further teaches that the separator (130) helps to prevent a fused portion of the sealing portion (123) from being opened by an internal pressure of the battery cell (120) ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the battery module disclosed by modified Pauli to have the claimed separator, as taught by Park, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to prevent a fused portion of the sealing portion of the battery cells from being opened by an internal pressure of the battery cell.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauli (DE 102012018048 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ohta et al. (US 2020/0328428) (Ohta) (of record) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2022/0393285) (Yun).
Regarding claim 13, modified Pauli discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 11. Modified Pauli fails to disclose, however, that each of the battery cells (Pauli: 3) includes a laminated film serving as an exterior member, wherein the laminated film is formed by an inner resin layer in contact with an electricity storage body of the battery cell (Pauli: 3) and a metal layer configured to cover the inner resin layer.
Yun teaches a similar battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells (100) (title; abstract; see Fig. 3). Yun further teaches that each battery cell (100) includes a laminated film (310) serving as an exterior member (see Figs. 3-5; [0042]), wherein the laminated film (310) is formed by an inner resin layer (310a) in contact with an electricity storage body (200) of the battery cell (100) and a metal layer (310b) configured to cover the inner resin layer (310a) (see Figs. 5 and 6; [0042]). Yun further teaches that this laminated film (310) allows for effective sealing of the battery cell (100) while preventing material penetration into the cell ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured each of the battery cells disclosed by Pauli to have the claimed laminated film, as taught by Yun, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow for effective sealing of the cells while preventing material penetration into the cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749