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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1 and 5-6. Claims 2-4 have been canceled. Claims 9-20 are newly submitted claims. Accordingly, claims 1, and 5-20 remain pending and are the claims addressed and examined below.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome objections to the drawings previously set in the Non-final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set in the Non-final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Friedrich does not disclose that the different member includes a first part and a second part spaced apart from the first part in at least one direction that is orthogonal to the arrangement direction, and a space between the first and second parts of the different member forms the gas flow channel of the different member. However, Friedrich discloses that the spacer may be multilayered in the stacking direction and also shows an embodiment where the spacer is placed in two edge regions apart from each other (page 43; ¶ 0118 and Fig. 17). The multilayer structure includes at least one layer of the porous elastic member and at least one layer of the different member. The different member may be any of the layers in the spacer since Friedrich teaches three layers, each layer may be considered a different member (page 55; ¶ 0144). As the porous member and the different member are included in the first and second parts shown in Fig. 7, part 1 and 2 read on the different material being between the battery and the porous elastic member. Friedrich also teaches that the space between the edge regions is the gas flow channel (page 43; ¶ 0118). This reads on the
PNG
media_image1.png
298
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
first and second parts forming the gas flow channel. Labeled Fig. 17 is shown below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…the porous elastic member is configured to discharge gas through the plurality of communication holes in response to at least one of the rectangular secondary batteries adjacent to the porous elastic member expands, and take in gas through the plurality of communication holes in response to the at least one of the rectangular secondary batteries adjacent to the porous elastic member shrinking” in claim 9. The corresponding structure is found in paragraph (¶ 0015 and ¶ 0043).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-9, 13, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE 102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation).
With regards to claim 1, Friedrich teaches a battery pack, comprising: a plurality of rectangular secondary batteries that are disposed along a predetermined arrangement direction (page 31; ¶ 0094 and ¶ 0096 and Fig. 3). Friedrich teaches the battery pack wherein each of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries (cells) includes a battery case (page 2; ¶ 0007 and Fig. 3). In ¶ 0007, Friedrich’s teaches a cell (6) located inside the casing that reads on an electrode body that is accommodated in the battery case. Friedrich goes on to teach the battery case including a pair of first side walls opposing each other (12), and each of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries is arranged with the corresponding pair of first side walls opposing each other (Fig. 3). Friedrich teaches a porous elastic member (spacer) that is disposed between the rectangular secondary batteries that are adjacent in the arrangement direction (Page 24; ¶ 0078, Page 31; ¶ 0094, and Page 42; ¶ 0117). Friedrich also teaches a restriction mechanism including a pair of plates applying a restriction load on the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries and the porous elastic member from the arrangement direction (Page 3-4; ¶ 0011 and page 26; ¶ 0088). Friedrich goes on to teach that the porous elastic member includes a plurality of communication holes that communicate with outside of the porous elastic member and is configured to be deformable elastically in the arrangement direction by taking in or discharging gas (Page 18; ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0058, ¶ 0078 and ¶ 0024). Friedrich teaches a different member is additionally provided between one of the rectangular secondary batteries and the porous elastic member, and the different member includes a gas flow channel extending from an outer edge of the different member to inside on at least a surface that is in contact with the porous elastic member in a state where the different member is assembled to the battery pack (page 19-20: ¶ 0061 - ¶ 0063 and page 43: ¶ 0118). In Fig. 17, Friedrich also teaches that the different member includes a first part and a second part spaced apart from the first part in at least one direction that is orthogonal to the arrangement direction, and a space between the first and second parts of the different member forms the gas flow channel of the different member. Fig. 17 is shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
298
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As discussed earlier, Friedrich teaches that at least one of the pair of first side walls in each of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries opposes the porous elastic member. However, Friedrich does not teach an area of each of the pair of first side walls is 20000 mm2 or more in plan view. Similar to the applicant, Friedrich, discloses that the battery pack is meant for use in vehicles [0006]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, barring a showing of unexpected results, to adjust the size of the rectangular secondary battery of Friedrich by including a 20000 mm2 area of the first side wall, since different sized vehicles require different sized batteries as mere changes in size or relative dimension present a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Limitations 1a, 1b, and 1c are optional limitations and therefore are not given patentable weight given the context of claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
555
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 5, In Fig. 13, Friedrich shows that in the battery case of each of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries, an exterior body including a bottom wall, the pair of first side walls extending from the bottom wall, a pair of second side walls extending from the bottom wall and opposing each other, and an opening that opposes the bottom wall, and a sealing plate that seals the opening of the exterior body are joined. Fig. 13 below shows the battery housing with six walls; However, all walls are not visible in this view.
Regarding claim 8, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich
also teaches that the spacer is made of plastics such as polyethylene or polypropylene (page 24-26; [0081]). Friedrich does not explicitly teach that the porous elastic member is made of resin however, polyethylene and polypropylene anticipate resin since they are a species of the resin genus. See MPEP § 2131.02.
With regards to claim 9, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich teaches a spacer that reads on the porous elastic member of the claimed invention. As discussed earlier, Friedrich teaches that the spacer is a porous and elastically deformable material that is arranged between the batteries (page 24: ¶ 0078; page 31: ¶ 0094; page 42; ¶ 0117). The holes that form the porous body taught by Friedrich read on the communication holes. Overall, the resulting structure of Friedrich is a porous elastic member with communication holes and will therefore be able to discharge gas through the plurality of communication holes in response to at least one of the rectangular secondary batteries adjacent to the porous elastic member expands, and take in gas through the plurality of communication holes in response to the at least one of the rectangular secondary batteries adjacent to the porous elastic member shrinking. See 112f discussion above.
With regards to claim 13, as discussed earlier, Friedrich teaches that the different member includes the first and second part spaced apart from the first part in at least one direction that is orthogonal to the arrangement direction, and the space between the first and second parts of the different member forms the gas flow channel (16) of the different member
PNG
media_image1.png
298
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 43: ¶ 0118), Fig. 17). Fig. 17 is shown below.
With regards to claim 18, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich is silent on a thickness of the porous elastic member in a state after the porous elastic member is assembled to the battery pack and compressed. However, Friedrich teaches a similar porous elastic member that is arranged and configured to function in the same manner as the porous elastic member as the claimed invention.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, barring a showing of unexpected results, to adjust the compressed thickness of the porous elastic member to be 2 to 9 mm, as mere changes in size or relative dimension present a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
PNG
media_image2.png
298
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 20, In Fig. 17, Friedrich shows that the outer edge of the different member is located on an inner side of the outer edge of the porous elastic member in plan view. Fig. 17 is shown below.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE 102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation) and in view of Holman et. al (US 20170237112 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Friedrich teaches a battery pack, comprising: a plurality of rectangular secondary batteries that are disposed along a predetermined arrangement direction (page 31; ¶ 0094 and ¶ 0096 and Fig. 3). Friedrich teaches the battery pack wherein each of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries (cells) includes a battery case (page 2; ¶ 0007 and Fig. 3). In ¶ 0007, Friedrich’s teaches a cell (6) located inside the casing that reads on an electrode body that is accommodated in the battery case. Friedrich goes on to teach the battery case including a pair of first side walls opposing each other (12), and each of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries is arranged with the corresponding pair of first side walls opposing each other (Fig. 3). Friedrich teaches a porous elastic member (spacer) that is disposed between the rectangular secondary batteries that are adjacent in the arrangement direction (Page 24; ¶ 0078, Page 31; ¶ 0094, and Page 42; ¶ 0117). Friedrich also teaches a restriction mechanism including a pair of plates applying a restriction load on the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries and the porous elastic member from the arrangement direction (Page 3-4; ¶ 0011 and page 26; ¶ 0088). Friedrich goes on to teach that the porous elastic member includes a plurality of communication holes that communicate with outside of the porous elastic member and is configured to be deformable elastically in the arrangement direction by taking in or discharging gas (Page 18; ¶ 0057 - ¶ 0058, ¶ 0078 and ¶ 0024). Friedrich teaches a different member is additionally provided between one of the rectangular secondary batteries and the porous elastic member, and the different member includes a gas flow channel extending from an outer edge of the different member to inside on at least a surface that is in contact with the porous elastic member in a state where the different member is assembled to the battery pack (page 19-20; ¶ 0061 - ¶ 0063). Friedrich also teaches that the different member includes a first part and a second part spaced apart from the first part in at least one direction that is orthogonal to the arrangement direction, and a space between the first and second parts of the different member forms the gas flow channel of the different member. Fig. 17 is shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
298
581
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As discussed earlier, Friedrich teaches that at least one of the pair of first side walls in each of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries opposes the porous elastic member. However, Friedrich does not teach an area of each of the pair of first side walls is 20000 mm2 or more in plan view. Similar to the applicant, Friedrich, discloses that the battery pack is meant for use in vehicles [0006]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, barring a showing of unexpected results, to adjust the size of the rectangular secondary battery of Friedrich by including a 20000 mm2 area of the first side wall, since different sized vehicles require different sized batteries as mere changes in size or relative dimension present a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. However, Friedrich does not teach limitations 1a, 1b or 1c.
PNG
media_image5.png
794
909
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In a similar field of endeavor, Holman teaches a battery pack comprising a porous elastic member disposed between rectangular secondary batteries (¶ 0036). In Fig. 4, Holman teaches shows a gas flow channel of the porous elastic member includes a first linear region extending in a first direction and a second linear region extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction, and the first part is spaced apart from the second part by the first linear region or the second linear region. This reads on limitation 1c. Labeled Fig. 4 is shown below.
In Fig. 4 and 5, the porous elastic member also includes an empty space between a first and second part which reads on a concave part. This space connects the first and second parts together and defines the gas flow channel of the porous elastic member. As shown in Fig. 5, the area of this concave part in plan view is smaller than an area of the first part and an area of the second part. This reads on limitation 1b. Holman teaches that these arrangements allow for a substantial portion of the external surface of the side walls to be exposed to air flow or coolant
PNG
media_image6.png
678
676
media_image6.png
Greyscale
flow (¶ 0017). Labeled Fig. 5 is shown below.
From Fig. 4, Holman also shows a first part and a second part spaced apart from the first part in at least one direction that is orthogonal to the arrangement direction, wherein the porous elastic member includes a first slit extending from a first section of the outer edge to the inside, a second slit extending from an opposite, second section of the outer edge to the inside, and a coupling part is interposed between the first slit and the second slit and the gas flow channel of the porous elastic member is defined by the first and second slit. Holman does not specifically teach that the coupling part connects the first part and the second part together however, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Labeled
PNG
media_image7.png
690
870
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 is shown below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to arrange the porous elastic member taught by Friedrich in the manners taught by Holman as this would predictably expose a substantial portion of the side walls to air, ensuring proper coolant flow.
With regards to claim 9, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich teaches a spacer that reads on the porous elastic member of the claimed invention. As discussed earlier, Friedrich teaches that the spacer is a porous and elastically deformable material that is arranged between the batteries (page 24: ¶ 0078; page 31: ¶ 0094; page 42; ¶ 0117). The holes that form the porous body taught by Friedrich read on the communication holes. Overall, the resulting structure of Friedrich is a porous elastic member with communication holes and will therefore be able to discharge gas through the plurality of communication holes in response to at least one of the rectangular secondary batteries adjacent to the porous elastic member expands, and take in gas through the plurality of communication holes in response to the at least one of the rectangular secondary batteries adjacent to the porous elastic member shrinking. See 112f discussion above.
With regards to claim 10, as discussed earlier, Holman shows that the porous elastic member includes the first slit extending from the first section of the outer edge to the inside, the second slit extending from the opposite, second section of the outer edge to the inside, and the coupling part is interposed between the first slit and the second slit and connects the first part and the second part together, and the gas flow channel of the porous elastic member is defined by the first and second slits (Fig. 4).
With regards to claim 11, as discussed earlier, Holman teaches that the porous elastic member includes the concave part connecting the first part and the second part together, the concave part defines the gas flow channel of the porous elastic member, and the area of the concave part in plan view is smaller than the area of the first part and the area of the second part (Figs. 4 and 5).
With regards to claim 12, as discussed earlier in Fig. 4, Holman shows that the gas flow channel of the porous elastic member includes the first linear region extending in the first direction. Holman also teaches that the first part is apart from the second part by the first linear region or the second linear region. Holman does not teach the second linear region extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction at a center of the pair of first side walls. However, arranging the porous member in manner where the first and second linear regions intersect at the center of the wall would still allow for a substantial portion of the side wall to be exposed to air. Thus, 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).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE 102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation) as applied to claim 5 and in further view of Holman et. al (US 20170237112 A1).
With regards to claim 6, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 5. Friedrich is silent to a ratio of an area of the porous elastic member to the area of one of the pair of first side walls is 50% or more in the plan view. However, Friedrich teaches that the contact of the heat medium with the cells is such that at least 50% of the respective cell wall comes into direct contact with the heat medium (¶ 0019).
In a similar field of endeavor, Holman teaches a battery pack comprising a porous elastic member disposed between rectangular secondary batteries. Holman goes on to teach that a ratio of an area of the porous elastic member to the area of the first side wall is 50% or more in the plan view (¶ 0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to recognize that allowing at least 50% of the porous member taught by Friedrich to be in contact with the first side wall, as taught by Holman, enables the spacer to exert a preload on designated portion or portions of the electrochemical cell while cooling the cell.
Claim(s) 7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE 102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Torita et al. (US 20180090763 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich
teaches that the porous elastic member (spacer) may include polyethylene or polypropylene (page 25, ¶ 0081). However, Friedrich is silent on the porosity of the porous elastic member, prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Torita also teaches a separator that may include porous polyethylene or polypropylene (¶ 0080). Torita teaches that the separator may have a porosity of about 30 to 80%. This falls within the claimed range of 10 to 90 vol%
As Torita teaches the same material as Friedrich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the porous elastic member to have a porosity within a range such as 30 to 80% as taught by Torita as there are no unpredictable results.
With regards to claim 15, as discussed earlier, modified Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein a porosity of the porous elastic member may be 30-80% which overlaps with the claimed range of 25 to 75 vol%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 16, Friedrich is silent on the elastic force of the porous elastic member is 1 kN/mm to 10x3 kN/mm.
Tirota teaches that the separator may have a spring constant of about 90 to 150 kN/mm. This spring constant reads on the elastic force of the separator as it is a representation of the force exerted per mm of displacement. The range taught by Tirota overlaps with the claimed range of 1 kN/mm to 10x3 kN/mm.
As Tirota teaches the same material as Friedrich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the spacer taught by Friedrich to have an elastic force within the range taught by Tirota as there would be no unexpected results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE
102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kitaoka et al. (US 20160293929 A1).
With regards to claim 14, In Fig. Friedrich shows that each of the first side walls has a flat shape having a height in a height direction perpendicular to the arrangement direction and a width in a direction perpendicular to the height direction and the arrangement direction. However, Friedrich is silent on the exact measurements of the height and width of the side walls.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kitaoka teaches dimensions of a prismatic secondary battery (¶ 0064). Kitaoka teaches that the battery is particularly effective when the height of is 10 cm or less and the width of the prismatic secondary battery is 17 cm or greater (¶ 0064). These dimensions read on the dimensions of a first cell wall. In a case where the height is 5 cm and the width is 17 cm, the ratio of the height to the width is approximately 0.30, which falls within the range of the claimed invention (1/3 to 1/15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the first cell wall taught by Friedrich to have a height and width within the range taught by Kitaoka as this would predictably yield an effective battery cell.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE
102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kogami et al. (US 20230135817 A1).
With regards to claim 17, The battery pack according to claim 1, Friedrich teaches that the porous elastic member may include polypropylene (page 24-26: ¶ 0081). However, Friedrich does not specifically teach that the porous elastic member includes at least one of natural rubber, synthetic rubber, silicone resin or urethane resin.
In a similar field of endeavor Kogami teaches a separator interposed between battery cells (¶ 0025). Kogami teaches that the separator may comprise an elastomer layer, and a plastic foam layer that deform and absorb the expansion of each battery cell (¶ 0026). In ¶ 0026, Kogami also teaches that the separator is capable of absorbing large expansion while more smoothly absorbing small expansion of the battery cell having a high occurrence frequency. Kogami teaches that the elastomer material may be a synthetic rubber and similar to Friedrich, Kogami discloses that the plastic foam may be an open-cell plastic (¶ 0029 - ¶ 0031). The separator reads on the claimed porous elastic member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include an elastomer layer such as synthetic rubber as taught by Kogami in the spacer taught by Friedrich as this would predictably yield a spacer capable of deforming to absorb large and small expansions of the battery cell.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE
102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20220247040 A1).
With regards to claim 19, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich does no teach that the different member includes at least one of a non-porous insulation film; a heat-resistant member including high-melting-point resin; a heat-resistant member including a resin material and ceramic particles; or a heat insulation member including a nanoporous body mainly containing silica aerogel or silica.
In a similar field of endeavor Takahashi teaches a separator interposed between battery cells to absorb the expansion of battery cells (¶ 0046). Takahashi teaches that the separator is a hybrid material of silica aerogel and a fibrous reinforcing material that may further include an elastic sheet (¶ 0047). Takahashi teaches that the elastic sheet may be a synthetic rubber or, similar to Friedrich, a resin such as polypropylene which suppresses deformation of the upper edge part of the battery cell (¶ 0070). In ¶ 0035, Takahashi teaches that the hybrid material also functions as an insulating sheet that insulates the stacked battery cells (¶ 0035). The separator reads on the different member that includes a heat insulation member including a nanoporous body mainly containing silica aerogel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the spacer taught by Friedrich to include the hybrid material taught by taught by Takahashi as this would predictably yield a spacer capable of absorbing the expansion of the battery cells as well as insulating them.
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 HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights