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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2023, 01/28/2025, and 06/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 3 and 8 are 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.
Claims 3 and 8 state that the inner wall of the one frame plate is positioned inwardly from the joining wall of the other frame plate. The structure of claim 3 is indefinite as it contradicts the structure of claim 1. Claim 1 has the opposite configuration wherein the “joining wall being positioned inwardly from the outer wall of the one frame plate”. Thus it is unclear the structure applicant is trying to claim as claims 3 and 8 contradict the configuration of claim 1 and of the figures. The examiner will interpret that the structure of claims 3 and 8 to require that the joining wall is positioned inwardly and that the inner wall of the one frame plate can face the joining wall as is seen in the figures of the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (JP 2005251465 A-as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a bipolar battery comprising:
Cell members connected in series to each other by alternately stacking the cell members and frame plates in multiple layers, wherein each of the cell members is configured such that an electrolyte layer is provided between a positive electrode and a negative electrode (figure 4-5; [0047] unit cells 23 are stacked and connected in series, battery elements 21 having a negative electrode layer 17, a positive electrode layer 15 and an electrolyte layer 19 that is sandwiched between the positive and negative electrode layers ), and the frame plates are made of resin and configured such that the cell members are accommodated in the frame plates; Figures 1-5, frames 1 made of a insulating material such as a resin; [0070-0073]);
An outer wall integrally projected along a peripheral edge on a facing surface of one frame plate out of a pair of the frame plates facing each other (Annotated Figures 4-5 below); and
A joining wall integrally projected on a facing surface of an other frame plate out of the pair of the frame plates facing each other (Figures 4-5 below), the joining wall being positioned inwardly from the outer wall of the one frame plate and surrounding a peripheral edge of a corresponding one of the cell members (Figures 4-5 below), wherein the joining wall of the other frame plate is joined to the facing surface of the one frame plate via a joining material ([0046] the frames are bonded to each other with a known adhesive or the like), Figure 11; [0107] buffer material 39 is arranged to couple the frames together).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
499
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Watanabe further discloses wherein the joining material is provided between the outer wall of the one frame plate and the joining wall of the other frame plate (Figures 10-11 buffer material 39 is provided between the two plate members as seen in Figure 11).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 2. Watanabe further discloses an inner wall integrally projected on the facing surface of the on frame plate, the inner wall being positioned inwardly from the joining wall of the other frame plate and surrounding the peripheral edge of the corresponding one of the cell members, wherein the inner wall of the one frame plate is joined to the joining wall of the other frame plate via the joining material (Figures 4-5 and 11). See 112b rejection above as further clarification of the structure is required.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claims 2 and 8. Watanabe further discloses wherein the joining material is an adhesive or a fusing material ([0107] buffer material can be bonded with an adhesive or by bonding, depositing or plating).
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 17, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1, 2 and 8. Watanabe further discloses wherein the outer wall of the one frame plate is joined to the facing surface of the other frame plate by the joining material (Figure 11; the frame members are coupled together with the use of the buffer material; [0107]).
Regarding claims 7, 12 and 20, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1, 2 and 8. Watanabe further discloses wherein the resin is thermoplastic resin ([0070-0073] the frame can be made of an insulating material such as polyethylene, polypropylene, epoxy resins, etc.; materials are thermoplastic resin materials).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 17. Watanabe further discloses wherein the joining material is an adhesive or a fusing material ([0107] buffer material can be bonded with an adhesive or by bonding, depositing or plating).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claims 15 and 18. Watanabe further discloses wherein the fusing material is a solidified material generated by welding processing between the joining wall of the other frame plate and the facing surface of the one frame plate ([0107] bonding the frame parts together). Examiner notes that the limitation of welding is a product by process limitation and thus are not given patentable weight.. The product-by-limitations of claims 16 and 19 are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claims 16 and 19 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2005251465 A-as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claims 1 and 2. Watanabe further discloses an inner wall integrally projected on the facing surface of the on frame plate, the inner wall being positioned inwardly from the joining wall of the other frame plate and surrounding the peripheral edge of the corresponding one of the cell members (Figures 4-5 and 11). Watanabe is silent with respect to wherein the inner wall of the one frame plate is joined to the joining wall of the other frame plate via the joining material as Figure 11 shows the inner the buffer material and adhesive on a top wall between the two frame members and not between an inner wall, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the placement of the buffer material/adhesive to be between the inner wall of the one frame and the joining wall of the other frame as a simple rearrangement of the buffer/adhesive material to couple the frame portion together. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 10, modified Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Watanabe further discloses wherein the joining material is an adhesive or a fusing material ([0107] buffer material can be bonded with an adhesive or by bonding, depositing or plating).
Regarding claim 11, modified Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Watanabe further discloses wherein the outer wall of the one frame plate is joined to the facing surface of the other frame plate by the joining material (Figure 11; the frame members are coupled together with the use of the buffer material; [0107]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Watanabe further discloses wherein the resin is thermoplastic resin ([0070-0073] the frame can be made of an insulating material such as polyethylene, polypropylene, epoxy resins, etc.; materials are thermoplastic resin materials).
Claims 4, 9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2005251465 A-as cited in the IDS) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 8 above, and further in view Bronczyk et al. (US 2011/0256446 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Watanabe discloses wherein the frame members are fitted with each other and is silent with respect to wherein a gap can be formed between the frame portions.
Bronczyk discloses a battery cell assembly having a plurality of frame portions having an extension region that can connect adjacent frames together (Figures 1-9). Bronczyk discloses wherein the frame portions as seen in Figures 8-9 can be connected together and can contain a gap region between the two frame members and discloses wherein gaps can be provided for air to flow through in order to cool the battery ([0025-0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skill artisan to provide a gap as taught by Bronczyk between the two adjacent frame members of Watanabe in order to provide a channel for air to cool the battery cells while maintaining the frame connection to secure the battery cells within the frame. The resulting modification would render obvious the claim limitations relating to the gap between frame members.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Watanabe discloses wherein the frame members are fitted with each other and is silent with respect to wherein a gap can be formed between the frame portions.
Bronczyk discloses a battery cell assembly having a plurality of frame portions having an extension region that can connect adjacent frames together (Figures 1-9). Bronczyk discloses wherein the frame portions as seen in Figures 8-9 can be connected together and can contain a gap region between the two frame members and discloses wherein gaps can be provided for air to flow through in order to cool the battery ([0025-0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skill artisan to provide a gap as taught by Bronczyk between the two adjacent frame members of Watanabe in order to provide a channel for air to cool the battery cells while maintaining the frame connection to secure the battery cells within the frame. The resulting modification would render obvious the claim limitations relating to the gap between frame members.
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Watanabe discloses wherein the frame members are fitted with each other and is silent with respect to wherein a gap can be formed between the frame portions.
Bronczyk discloses a battery cell assembly having a plurality of frame portions having an extension region that can connect adjacent frames together (Figures 1-9). Bronczyk discloses wherein the frame portions as seen in Figures 8-9 can be connected together and can contain a gap region between the two frame members and discloses wherein gaps can be provided for air to flow through in order to cool the battery ([0025-0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skill artisan to provide a gap as taught by Bronczyk between the two adjacent frame members of Watanabe in order to provide a channel for air to cool the battery cells while maintaining the frame connection to secure the battery cells within the frame. The resulting modification would render obvious the claim limitations relating to the gap between frame members.
Regarding claim 14, modified Watanabe discloses all the claim limitations of claim 13. Watanabe further discloses wherein the joining material is an adhesive or a fusing material ([0107] buffer material can be bonded with an adhesive or by bonding, depositing or plating).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moomaw et al. (US 2016/0329535 A1)-discloses a sealed bipolar battery assembly having a plurality of frames to create a seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728