RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Claims 1 and 4-10 remain pending in the application.
Claims 2-3 are cancelled in the application.
Amendments to the specification and the claims, filed on February 17, 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to the specification, made of record in the office action mailed on 10 December 2025, page 1, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 17 February 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of claims 1-6 made of record in the office action mailed 10 December 2025, pages 1-2, have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 17 February 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-5 as unpatentable over Kiyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2016/072198) in view of Hashimoto (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2014/010438) made of record in the office action mailed on 10 December 2025, pages 2-6, have been withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment in the response filed 17 February 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Kiyama (Japanese Patent No. 2016/072198) and Hashimoto (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2014/010438), further in view of Sakae (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0315807) and Watanabe et. al. (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0031953) made of record in the office action mailed on 10 December 2025, pages 6-8, has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 17 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the curved section of the first passage has a greater radius of curvature than the curved section of the second passage” in lines 1-2 which is deemed to be new matter. The original disclosure lacks support for the difference in radius of curvature for the first and second passages. The passages are primarily shown in figures 5 and 6, and are primarily described in paragraphs [0065]-[0070], however no indication of the radius of curvature of the curved sections are identified, including any difference in the radius of curvature between the first and second passage. The specification states “In a first example, the second rib 43B includes a second parallel portion that is parallel to the rolling axis L1, a second vertical portion that is orthogonal to the rolling axis L1, and an arc portion that is arc-shaped and connects the second parallel portion and the second vertical portion,” though no further description of the arc portion is given. The arc portions can be seen in figures 5 and 6, however it is not clear that there is any difference between the radius of curvature for the first and second passage. Furthermore, when the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. (MPEP 2125.II). Therefore, this newly added limitation is considered to be new matter.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0126604) in view of Kiyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2016/072198) and Hashimoto (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2014/010438). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-20160172198-A and WO-2014010438-A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Hiroe discloses a battery pack comprising battery cells ([0031], and fig. 1 ref. #10). Each battery cell includes an electrode body (power generating element, [0032]), a case accommodating the electrode body, each case including two opposing sidewalls in a single direction ([0031]), and an external terminal arranged on an upper part of the case ([0034], and fig. 1 ref. #11, #12). The battery cells are arranged next to one another in a single direction with a spacer arranged between one of the two opposing side walls of the case of one of the battery cells and one of the two opposing side walls of the case of an adjacent one of the battery cells ([0031], [0035], and fig. 1 ref. #10, #20).
The spacer presses one of the two opposing side walls of the of the case of the one of the battery cels toward an inner side of a corresponding case at a part where the two opposing side walls of the case of the one of the battery cells opposes a region from the upper curved portion of the electrode body to the lower curved portion of the electrode body ([0038], and fig. 2 ref. #20, the spacer covers the entire side of the battery cell in the Z direction).
The spacer also forms passages through which cooling air flows (flow passages of cooling air) between the spacer and the one of the side walls ([0042], and fig. 2 ref. #24) with a first cooling efficiency of the cooling air per unit area at a first opposing portion of the one of the side walls that opposes the upper curved portion being less than a second cooling efficiency of the cooling air per unit area at a second opposing portion of the one of the side walls that opposes the flat portion (fig. 2, see below). The first cooling efficiency of the cooling air per unit area at a first opposing portion must be lower than a second cooling efficiency of the cooling air per unit area at a second opposing portion as the flow path is longer for the air at the first opposing portion than it is for the air at the second opposing portion, which will lead to an increased loss in air pressure and in turn lower cooling efficiency, as explained Applicant’s specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A first portion can be defined as a portion in the passages that contacts the first opposing portion, and a second portion can be defined as a portion in passages that contacts the second opposing portion (fig. 2, see above).
The average velocity of cooling air flowing through the flow passages is directly related to the air pressure throughout the flow passage, with lower air pressure resulting in lower average velocity. Air pressure will decrease more in flow passages with longer path lengths. Therefore, the longer the path length of a cooling air flow path is, the lower the average velocity of cooling air flowing through the cooling air flow path.
Hiroe discloses a passage through which cooling air flows that has a longer path length in the first portion than in the second portion (fig. 2, see above). Therefore, Hiroe teaches a first average velocity of the cooling air in the first portion in a flowing direction being less than a second average velocity of the cooling air in the second portion in the flowing direction.
The passages include a first passage and a second passage that is not connected with the first passage, and the first passage passes through at the first portion while the second passage passes through at least the second portion and does not pass through the first portion (fig. 2, see above).
A first section located in the first portion of the first passage has a first cross-sectional flow area, and a second section located in the second portion of the second passage has a second cross- sectional flow area that is greater than the first cross-sectional flow area (fig. 2, see above). An entire length of the first passage is longer than an entire length of the second passage (fig. 2, see above).
Hiroe also teaches the electrode body is a stack of a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet, and a separator interposed between them ([0032]).
Hiroe is silent to the electrode body being a flattened roll with a flat portion having two opposing surfaces, an upper curved portion having an upper curved surface that connects upper edges of the two surfaces, and a lower curved portion having a lower curved surface that connects lower edges of the two surfaces, and to the electrode being accommodated toward a lower end of the case.
Kiyama teaches a battery pack comprising battery cells (secondary batteries) with spacers placed between the battery cells, the spacers forming cooling air flow passages (abstract). The battery cells each contain an electrode body. The electrode body is a flattened roll formed by rolling a stack of a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet, and a separator (bridging pages 1 and 2, para. [0008]). The flattened roll includes a flat portion having two opposing surfaces, an upper curved portion having an upper curved surface that connects upper edges of the two surfaces, and a lower curved portion having a lower curved surface that connects lower edges of the two surfaces, and the electrode body is accommodated in the case and located toward a lower end of the case (fig. 4, ref. #15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the flattened roll structure and placement of the electrode of Kiyama in the battery cells of Hiroe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as wound electrode bodies are well known in the art to allow for large energy density in battery cells, as well as lower placement in the case allowing for greater electrolyte uptake.
Modified Hiroe is silent to the inclusion of an electrolyte accommodated in the battery case.
Hashimoto discloses a battery pack made with a plurality of standard rectangular battery cells, each containing an electrode, with spacers separating the battery cells (page 2, paragraph 2). Hashimoto also discloses an electrolyte accommodated in the case (fig. 4 and 6, ref. #30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Kiyama with Hashimoto by the inclusion of an electrolyte accommodated in the case. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have an electrolyte in the battery cell because the electrolyte is the battery component that transfers ions between the positive electrode and negative electrode and allows to the battery to function.
Regarding Claim 4, Hiroe further discloses that the first cooling efficiency is less than a third cooling efficiency of the cooling air unit area as a third opposing portion (fig. 2, see above) of the one of the side walls that opposes the lower curved portion. For similar reasoning as above, since the total flow path length of the cooling air of the third opposing portion is shorter than the total flow path length of the cooling air of the first portion, the third cooling efficiency of the cooling air unit area as a third opposing portion will be greater than the first cooling efficiency.
Hiroe is silent to electrolyte contacting the lower curved surface and having a liquid below the upper curved portion.
Hashimoto further discloses that the electrolyte contacts the lower curved surface and has a liquid level below the upper curved portion (paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7, and fig. 6 and 7, ref. #30). If the liquid level LL is too low, there is a problem that the electrolytic solution does not permeate to the upper end of the electrode body 11 and the battery performance declines. On the other hand, if the liquid level LL is too high, the amount of the electrolytic solution 30 to be charged increases, the cost rises, the gas filled portion 1Y becomes small, and the action of absorbing the pressure rise decreases (page 6, fourth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the electrolyte contact the lower curved surface and have the liquid below the upper curved portion in the Hiroe battery cell as taught by Hashimoto . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as when the electrolyte level is significantly below this level, the electrolyte will not penetrate to the upper end of the electrode body, which will result in a problem of reduced battery performance. If the electrolyte level is significantly above this level, the amount of electrolyte to be filled increases, which increases costs.
Regarding Claim 5, Hiroe further discloses a third cooling efficiency of the cooling air unit area at a third opposing portion of the one of the side walls that opposes the lower curved portion. The third opposing portion is the bottom cooling air flow passage (fig. 2, see above).
Modified Hiroe is silent to the third cooling efficiency being less than the second cooling efficiency.
Kiyama further discloses cooling air passages with varied cross sectional flow areas (fig. 1, ref. #C1-C4). The cross-sectional flow area of the cooling air flow passages at a third opposing portion of the one of the side walls that opposes the lower curved portion is less than the cross-sectional flow area of the cooling air flow passages at a second opposing portion of the one of the side walls that opposes the flat portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the lower cross-sectional flow area in the third portion and the larger cross-sectional flow area in the second portion as taught by Kiyama in the cooling air flow passages of Hiroe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this adjustment in widths as this allows for a maximization of cooling in the areas of the electrode body that generate the most heat (Kiyama, [0030]).
Regarding Claim 7-8 and 10, Hiroe also teaches each of the first passage and the second passage includes a curved section (see fig. 2 above). Each of the first passage and the second passage has an inlet located at the lower end of the spacer and an outlet located near a side edge of the spacer ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hiroe also teaches the curved section of the first passage has a greater radius of curvature than the curved section of the second passage. This can be seen in figure 2 below, in which the circle representing the first passage curvature has a larger radius than the circle representing the second passage curvature.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0126604) in view of Kiyama (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2016/072198) and Hashimoto (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2014/010438), further in view of Sakae (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0315807) and Watanabe et. al. (US. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0031953). For prior art discussion see English translations for JP-2016-0172198-A and WO-2014010438-A1.
Hiroe, Kiyama, and Hashimoto are relied upon as described above
Modified Hiroe is silent to a value of a distance from the external terminal to the electrode body relative to a battery capacity of the one of the battery cells is greater than or equal to 1.57 mm/Ah.
Sakae teaches a cylindrical electrode terminal connected to the internal collector of a battery to facilitate power output (abstract, and fig. 1 ref. #1) for use in a vehicle (para. [0045]). The electrode terminal is fastened to a busbar with a nut to a threaded portion of the electrode (para. [0041] and fig. 3 ref. #11, #13, and #21), with the length of the disclosed terminal having an upper maximum of 100 millimeters (mm) (para. [0037]). The extended length of the electrode terminal allows for increased flexibility in the thickness of the connecting power drawing source and securing fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hiroe with 100 mm electrode terminals of Sakae. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as longer electrode terminals allow for increased flexibility for connecting to external power drawing sources.
Watanabe teaches a battery for use in a vehicle (para. [0010]) containing individual battery cells, with each having electrode bodies made of a positive electrode, negative electrode, separator, and electrolyte (abstract). The individual batteries have a charge capacity of 50 milliampere hours (mAh) each, which are then combined in series to form a battery pack (para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a capacity of the electrode body of Hiroe at 50 mAh as taught by Watanabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as the low capacity allows for limited size and weight of the individual cells (para. [0085]).
The combined teachings of Kiyama and Watanabe give a battery cell with the end of the external terminal to the electrode body being a minimum distance of 100 mm and a battery capacity of 50 mAh. This gives a ratio of 2 mm/Ah, which falls within the claimed limitation range of greater than or equal to 1.57 mm/Ah. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 February 2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 10 December 2025 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 February 2026 regarding the objection to the specification of record have been considered but are moot since the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 February 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112b rejections of record have been considered but are moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 February 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-6 of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed on 17 February 2026 regarding the new claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788
03/30/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788