DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2026-03-02 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 2026-03-02, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 2 have been amended; Claims 11, 13-14, and 19 have been (previously) canceled.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 15-18 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
Independent claims 1 and 2 now require: “when the first single cell generates heat, the heat flow rate transferred to the third single cell from the first single cell becomes greater than the heat flow rate transferred to the second single cell from the first single cell.”
The major problem with this amendment is that the claims are directed towards a three-cell configuration that is at odds with the specification’s description of the inventive result. Claims 1 and 2 also require “wherein one of two thickness-direction surfaces of the partition member has a first region opposing a first single cell in the assembled battery and a second region not opposing the first single cell, and, in the second region, opposes [a second single cell], wherein the other of the two thickness-direction surfaces of the partition member opposes [a third single cell] located at a position not opposing the first single cell across the partition member.” This is illustrated schematically below:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As should be clear, there is no support for a greater heat flow from the first cell to the third cell than the first cell to the second cell.
Applicant claims support for the new amendment comes from instant paragraphs 0132 and 0158, as well as accompanying figures 10 and 13 (Fig. 10 and new Fig. 13A shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
578
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Fig. 13A, there is a heater 30 supplying heat through buffer layers 32A/B, with “heat sinks” 34B/C, of undescribed composition. The specification indicates that heat transfer rate from the heater 30 to the heat sinks 34B/C is higher than that to heat sink 34A. But there is a buffer layer 32B between the partition and the heat sink 34A. That is, while the specification provides clear support for a higher heat flow rate from 30 to 34B/C than 34A, this does not clearly provide support for the claimed “cells”—in contradistinction to undescribed “heat sinks”—all of the same architecture.
In Fig. 10, cell 2b heats up, and the fluid contained in the partitions 1x/1y is volatilized, which the specification says “suppresses” heat transfer directly across the partition to cells 2a and 2c. Heat transfer is still possible along the “surface direction”, because the fluid is only partially volatilized. But that means that the lower parts of 1x/1y still transfer heat directly across the partition in the “thickness direction” to cells 2a/2c even if it also transfers heat in the “surface direction” to cells 2f/g/2h. While the specification appears to describe a mechanism of redistributing heat transfer, it does not seem to actually provide clear, unambiguous support for a greater heat flow rate to a cell like 2h than to cell 2c. Moreover, even assuming a homogenous, thermally conductive partition member, during an overheating event for cell 2b eventually the heat flow rate would be expected to be greater from 2b to 2g/2h than 2c simply because 2c has already equilibrated, and the remaining temperature difference between 2g/2h and 2b would dominate the flow.
Finally, the Office notes that claim 1 and 2 spend a lot of words trying to create optionality for either “single cells” or “members other than single cells” but ultimately require three single cells and no members. The claim should strike references to members that are then ruled out by the affirmation of a single cell in place of said members.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 15-18 are 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 inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 2 include new matter unsupported by the specification, as described above. The claims are therefore indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are, how the claims are supposed to physically operate to achieve the results described in the specification, and what the relations between the various positive structural features are.
As noted above in the 112(a) rejections during an overheating event for a cell 2b in a configuration like that shown in Fig. 10, eventually the heat flow rate would be expected to be greater from 2b to 2g/2h than 2c simply because 2c has already equilibrated, and the remaining temperature difference between 2g/2h and 2b would dominate the flow. It is therefore unclear how to interpret the limitation ‘wherein when the first single cell generates heat […]’, because it is unclear that the time implied by the “when” is clearly defined. That is, the heat flow rates depend on a variety of factors beyond simply whether or not the first single cell is “generating heat,” so it is unclear exactly what positive structural features are necessitated by the amendment. The Office has not interpreted the claims for purposes of prior art rejections, because any workable interpretation of the claims as written appears to do irremediable violence to the inventive concept expressed in the specification and drawings.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks filed 2026-03-02 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Applicant argues that the “first single cell 2b corresponds to the heater 30, the second single cell 2c corresponds to heat sink 34A, and the third single cell 2g corresponds to heat sink 34B” (Remarks at p. 12). That may be so, but that does not correspond to the claims as written. The Office points out that Fig. 10 contains three cells, while Fig. 13A contains simulated cells with buffer layers 32 and undescribed heat sinks 34. The specification does not appear to provide unambiguous support for “greater heat flow rates” to surface direction cells than to thickness direction cells directly across a partition. Any response arguing that the specification does, actually, provide support for this, needs to explain in a physically plausible way, with reference to the partition’s internal structure, why we would expect volatilization to cash out in greater heat flow rate to cells 2f/g/h than 2a/c. Heat flow is still in the “thickness direction” in addition to the “surface direction” to eventually reach cells 2f/g/h. Why should that thickness direction flow be different than that in the “first region” of the partition across which cells 2b and 2a/c are opposed?
The Office additionally points out that references to impossible/unrealized “other members” should be removed from the claims.
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