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
The amendment filed on May 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 are currently amended. Claims 8-11 remain withdrawn. Claims 12-14 are newly presented.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 has overcome the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 06, 2026. The rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. New rejections follow.
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 14 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 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.
The limitation “wherein the terminal member is an electrically conductive material and the one or more through holes penetrate the electrically conductive material” is not properly described in the application as filed because of the term “electrically conductive material”. The specification discloses that protruding terminal members 30E1 and 30E2 may be formed as a one-piece component with metal plates 111 and 121, respectively, which comprise metal foil, but does not disclose that the terminal member is “an electrically conductive material”, which includes materials that are not metal foils as disclosed in the specification.
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.
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 1-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 2013/0130082 A1, hereinafter “Miyazaki”) in view of Suzuki (US 2018/0212210 A1) and Takahashi (US 2013/0045402 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki discloses a power storage module ([0027] and Fig. 1, bipolar battery 2) comprising: an electrode assembly including a plurality of electrode plates stacked in a stacking direction ([0028] and Fig. 1, electrode assembly comprising four bipolar electrodes 3); a sealing body sealing and defining an internal space formed between two adjacent electrode plates of the plurality of electrode plates ([0031]-[0033], seal member 11 and space 8); and a terminal member provided to each of the plurality of electrode plates so as to protrude from the resin sealing body toward outside ([0037] and Fig. 1, voltage detection terminals 21a-21d protruding from seal member 11), and the internal space is defined between the resin sealing body and at least one of a positive electrode layer or a negative electrode layer of one of the two adjacent electrode plates ([0031]-[0033] and Fig. 1, space 8 located between positive active material layer 5, negative electrode active material layer 6, and seal member 11).
Miyazaki does not disclose wherein the sealing body is a resin sealing body, and wherein a portion of the terminal member protruding from the resin sealing body is provided with one or more through holes penetrating along the stacking direction.
Suzuki discloses a resin sealing body 80 formed by injecting and curing a curable resin, and from which negative electrode current collector layer protrusions 14a to 14e protrude ([0099]).
Miyazaki and Suzuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of power storage modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seal member of Miyazaki with the teachings of Suzuki according to known methods to yield the predictable result of sealing the bipolar electrodes, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Miyazaki does not disclose wherein a portion of the terminal member protruding from the resin sealing body is provided with one or more through holes penetrating along the stacking direction.
Takahashi discloses wherein a portion of the terminal member protruding from the resin sealing body is provided with one or more through holes penetrating along the stacking direction ([0071] and Fig. 5, slits 153 formed on negative electrode tab 15 and [0068], joint part between positive electrode tab 14 and positive electrode collectors 11a and joint part between negative electrode tab 15 and negative electrode collectors 13a have similar structures).
Takahashi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of power storage modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the voltage detection terminals of modified Miyazaki with the teachings of Takahashi, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would allow for the relief of expansion and contraction of the current collectors during welding (Takahashi [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Miyazaki further discloses wherein the one or more through holes are configured in the form of a plurality of slits (Takahashi [0071] and Fig. 5, slits 153).
Regarding claim 3, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 2. Modified Miyazaki further discloses wherein the plurality of slits, when viewed in the stacking direction, are aligned in a protruding direction in which the terminal member protrudes from the resin sealing body (Takahashi [0071] and see Takahashi Annotated Fig. 5 below, slits 153 aligned in a direction perpendicular to the protruding direction).
Takahashi Annotated Fig. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
564
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 2. Modified Miyazaki further discloses wherein the plurality of slits are provided so as to, when viewed in the stacking direction, extend along a protruding direction in which the terminal member protrudes from the resin sealing body and also be aligned in a direction crossing the protruding direction (Takahashi [0071] and see Annotated Fig. 5 above, slits 153 extend along protruding direction and are aligned in a direction perpendicular to the protruding direction), and each end of the plurality of slits that is located closer to the electrode assembly in the protruding direction is embedded inside the resin sealing body (Takahashi [0071] and see Annotated Fig. 5 above, slits 153 and embedded slit portion overlapping negative electrode current collector 13a). The corresponding voltage detection terminals 21a-21d of Miyazaki are partially buried in the seal member 11. The combination of modified Miyazaki and Takahashi would result in each end of the plurality of slits that is located closer to the electrode assembly in the protruding direction being embedded inside the resin sealing body.
Regarding claim 5, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 2. Modified Miyazaki does not disclose wherein a slit width of each of the plurality of slits is twice a wavelength of infrared light or less. Modified Miyazaki discloses that the width of slits 153 is preferably made greater than or equal to one-half of the distance between the conductors of conducting portion 153 and smaller than the length of the conductors of conducting portion 153 in the width direction (Takahashi [0071]).
Suzuki discloses negative electrode current collector layer protrusions 14a to 14c with length 0.1 mm to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the voltage detection terminals of modified Miyazaki with the teachings of Suzuki, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of doing so. Doing so would provide higher connection accuracy (Suzuki [0123]).
The combination of modified Miyazaki and Takahashi would result in a slit width of each of the plurality of slits from 0.1 mm to 3 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Miyazaki further discloses wherein at least one electrode plate of the plurality of electrode plates is a bipolar electrode ([0028] and Fig. 1, four bipolar electrodes 3), and the terminal member is a voltage detection terminal for detecting voltage between two adjacent electrode plates of the plurality of electrode plates ([0037] and Fig. 1, voltage detection terminals 21a-21d).
Regarding claim 7, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 6. Miyazaki further discloses wherein the voltage detection terminal provided to one of the two adjacent electrode plates and the voltage detection terminal provided to the other one of the two adjacent electrode plates are positioned in such a manner that overlapping is avoided when viewed in the stacking direction (Miyazaki Figs. 1 and 9, voltage detection terminals 21a-21d).
Regarding claim 13, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Miyazaki further discloses wherein the internal space is defined between metal plates of the two adjacent electrode plates of the plurality of electrode plates in the stacking direction ([0028] and Fig. 1, space 8 located between metal collectors 4).
Regarding claim 14, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Miyazaki does not disclose wherein the terminal member is an electrically conductive material and the one or more through holes penetrate the electrically conductive material.
Takahashi discloses that electrode tabs 14 and 15 are formed of an electrochemically stable metal material ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the voltage detection terminals of modified Miyazaki with the teachings of Takahashi according to known methods to yield the predictable result of voltage measurement and discharge capability, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 1-2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (US 2013/0130082) in view of Suzuki (US 2018/0212210 A1) and Asano et al. (US 2018/0062146 A1, hereinafter “Asano”).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki discloses a power storage module ([0027] and Fig. 1, bipolar battery 2) comprising: an electrode assembly including a plurality of electrode plates stacked in a stacking direction ([0028] and Fig. 1, electrode assembly comprising four bipolar electrodes 3); a sealing body sealing and defining an internal space formed between two adjacent electrode plates of the plurality of electrode plates ([0031]-[0033], seal member 11 and space 8); and a terminal member provided to each of the plurality of electrode plates so as to protrude from the resin sealing body toward outside ([0037] and Fig. 1, voltage detection terminals 21a-21d protruding from seal member 11), and the internal space is defined between the resin sealing body and at least one of a positive electrode layer or a negative electrode layer of one of the two adjacent electrode plates ([0031]-[0033] and Fig. 1, space 8 located between positive active material layer 5, negative electrode active material layer 6, and seal member 11).
Miyazaki does not disclose wherein the sealing body is a resin sealing body, and wherein a portion of the terminal member protruding from the resin sealing body is provided with one or more through holes penetrating along the stacking direction.
Suzuki discloses a resin sealing body 80 formed by injecting and curing a curable resin, and from which negative electrode current collector layer protrusions 14a to 14e protrude ([0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seal member of Miyazaki with the teachings of Suzuki according to known methods to yield the predictable result of sealing the bipolar electrodes, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Modified Miyazaki does not disclose wherein a portion of the terminal member protruding from the resin sealing body is provided with one or more through holes penetrating along the stacking direction.
Asano discloses a first lead 113 protruding from a resin seal member 130 that has a plurality of slits 117 ([0046], [0066]-[0070], and Figs. 4 and 9).
Asano is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of power storage modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the voltage detection terminals of modified Miyazaki with the teachings of Asano, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would provide the first lead 113 with a second spring structure, improving lead strength and elasticity (Asano [0067]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Miyazaki further discloses wherein the one or more through holes are configured in the form of a plurality of slits (Asano [0066]-[0070] and Fig. 9, slits 117).
Regarding claim 12, modified Miyazaki discloses the limitations of claim 2. Modified Miyazaki further discloses wherein the plurality of slits, when viewed in the stacking direction, are aligned in a direction crossing a protruding direction in which the terminal member protrudes from the resin sealing body (Asano [0066]-[0070] and Fig. 9, slits 117 along direction of length D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 12-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:45AM to 4:45PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 18 August 2026
Prosecution Insights