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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 and Species 1a in the reply filed on 04/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden between the product and the method, and that the inventions are both classified in H01M 50.
This is not found persuasive because, as laid out in the restriction requirement (mailed 02/26/2026), Group 1 (drawn towards a battery) and Group 2 (drawn towards a method of making a battery) are related as product and process of making. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, Group 1 could be made by another and materially different process, such as first assembling the casing and the electrically insulating coating and then placing the one or more battery elements into the casing, or by using a preassembled electrically insulating coating which is already formed with a welded seam, and then gluing the preassembled electrically insulating coating onto the casing containing the battery elements.
The search burden applies since the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their divergent classifications, and the invention require a different field of search (e.g. employing different search strategies or search queries).
Regarding the argument that the species should be withdrawn since generic claims 1 and 8 are allowable, this is not found persuasive since Claim 1 is rejected over the prior art (see below), and Claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a nonelected invention. The species are drawn towards mutually exclusive structures (as laid out in the restriction requirement mailed 02/26/2026), and are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant has identified Claims 1-3 and 7 as reading on the elected invention of Group 1 and Species 1a. Claims 4-6 and 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/14/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “an electrically insulating coating” and then later “the coating”. Similarly, Claims 2 and 7 recite “the coating”. The later recitations of “the coating” should be amended to read “the electrically insulating coating” in order to be consistent with the initially provided antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites, “at least one film material that overlaps on at least one seam, the at least one film material being welded on at least one seam” (emphasis added). Here, the later recitation of “at least one seam” should be amended to read “the at least one seam” (emphasis added) in order to clearly reference the previously recited “at least one seam”, and increase clarity. Similarly, “the seam” in Claim 3 should read “the at least one seam” (emphasis added) in order to match the previously provided antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites “and wherein the first coating part and the second coating part is formed of different film materials”. This limitation appears to have a grammatical error, and should likely read “and wherein the first coating part and the second coating part are formed of different film materials” (emphasis added).
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 is 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.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the at least one film material is formed of the same material at least on the contact surfaces located in the seam”. There is no previous antecedent basis for “the contact surfaces”, and therefore it is unclear which surfaces are referenced. It could be interpreted that this limitation is intended to reference the contact between the “at least one film material” (i.e. the contact between the layers of film material that overlap in the seam), or it could be interpreted that this limitation is intended to reference the contact between the “at least one film material” and the casing. As such, Claim 3 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation references the contact between the film material in the overlapping region, as supported by the instant specification [0020].
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu et al. (US-20020146626-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Komatsu discloses a battery (70, Fig. 7) [0020-0021, 0042] comprising:
a casing (corresponds to the barrier layer made of aluminum; [0041]);
one or more battery elements accommodated in the casing (electricity storing element 61, Fig. 6; [0041]); and
an electrically insulating coating for the casing (corresponds to weld layer made of polyethylene; [0041]),
the coating being made of at least one film material that overlaps on at least one seam (see annotation of Komatsu Fig. 6, below; [0041]),
the at least one overlapping film material being welded on at least one seam [0041].
PNG
media_image1.png
684
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Komatsu Fig. 6.
Regarding Claim 3, Komatsu discloses all of the limitations as set forth, above. Komatsu discloses that the at least one film material (i.e. polyethylene; [0041]) is formed of the same material at least on the contact surfaces located in the seam (i.e. Komatsu discloses that the layers of polyethylene are contact one another and are welded together; [0041]).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US-20060263682-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a battery (200, Fig. 4; [0027]) comprising:
a casing (corresponds to ferrite SUS layer 211 of sheath; [0030]);
one or more battery elements accommodated in the casing (electrode assembly 221, Fig. 5; [0027-0028]); and
an electrically insulating coating (first insulation layer 212, Fig. 5; [0011, 0030]) for the casing,
the coating being made of at least one film material (i.e. cast polypropylene, CPP; [0011, 0030]) that overlaps on at least one seam (outer peripheral edges 217c, Fig. 4; [0030]),
the at least one overlapping film material being welded (i.e. thermally bonded; [0030]) on at least one seam (i.e. the outer peripheral edges 217c, Fig. 4; [0030]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses that an adhesive (not shown) may be applied between the casing (i.e. ferrite SUS layer 211) and the insulating coating (i.e. first insulation layer 212) [0030]. An adhesive is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a glue, and therefore the addition of an adhesive layer between the casing and the coating reads on “wherein the coating is glued to the casing”.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses that the at least one film material is formed of the same material (i.e. cast polypropylene, CP) at least on the contact surfaces located in the seam (i.e. Kim discloses that the layers of CP are in contact with one another and are thermally bonded together, thereby forming the seam; [0030]).
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US-20230106775-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a battery (battery unit 400, Fig. 1-D; [0084, 0122]) comprising:
a casing (housing 40, Fig. 1-D; [0084, 0122]);
one or more battery elements accommodated in the casing (electrode assembly 30, Fig. 1-D; [0084]); and
an electrically insulating coating (insulation tape; [0091, 0120]) for the casing,
the coating being made of at least one film material (matrix material; [0120]) that overlaps (i.e. overlapping portions 222; [0095]) on at least one seam.
Chen discloses that the overlapping portions are connected into a whole to form an integrated connection [0106], and that an integral connection can be formed by welding [0070]. Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have joined the overlapping portions via welding on the at least one seam (i.e. the seam formed by welding) with a reasonable expectation that such a connection would result in a successful integrated connection and a successful electrically insulating coating.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses that an adhesive structure is provided on the side of the insulation tape (electrically insulating coating) close to the accommodation space in order to bond the insulation tape to the cell [0096-0097, 0101, 0120]. Therefore, the electrically insulating coating is interpreted as being glued (i.e. bonded via an adhesive structure) to the casing.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses that the film material (i.e. matrix material) can be selected from a list of high polymer materials [0120]. Although Chen does not specifically disclose that the matrix is formed of a single material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the matrix material of a single high polymer material with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful coating. Therefore, Chen renders obvious that the film material (matrix material) is formed of the same material at least on the contact surfaces located in the seam (i.e. Chen renders obvious that the layers of high polymer material are in contact with one another and are welded together, thereby forming the seam; [0070, 0095, 0106, 0120]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US-20230106775-A1) as applied to Claim 1, and in view of Ulrich et al. (DE-102015211656-A1; see also Applicant provided English translation filed 12/06/2023).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Chen further discloses that the casing has a cuboid shape (Fig. 4; [0084]).
Chen discloses that the coating is formed on the large sides and the end faces of the casing (see annotation of Chen Fig. 6, below). Although Chen discloses that the coating is formed on one of the long sides (i.e. the bottom side), Chen does not teach that the coating is formed on both of the long sides (i.e. the top side is not disclosed as having a coating). Notably, Chen discloses that the battery cell includes an explosion-proof member including a pressure relief mechanism [0088-0089].
PNG
media_image2.png
565
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Chen Fig. 6.
Ulrich teaches a battery cell comprising an electrically insulating film [0006, 0010]. Ulrich teaches that the electrically insulating film can at least partially cover all surfaces of the housing, and preferably covers the safety valve at least partially [0012-0013]. Advantageously, such a configuration protects the safety valve from damage, extends the battery service life, and provides increased corrosion resistance to the safety valve [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the battery of Chen such that the coating is formed on all sides, including the top side such that it covers the safety valve, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery with extended service life. Therefore, the coating of modified Chen is “is formed on the large sides and the long sides of the casing”. The coating is formed of a first coating part (i.e. the matrix material; [0120]).
Chen discloses that an adhesive structure (610, Fig. 6) is coated on each end face [0126, 0128, 0131-0132]. The combination of the matrix material and the adhesive structure is interpreted as reading on “a second coating”. Such an interpretation appears reasonable, since the instant specification evidences that the “coating” can be formed of separate, non-integral parts (instant specification: Figs. 1-2 [0025, 0035]). The first coating part (i.e. the matrix) and the second coating part (i.e. the combination of the matrix and the adhesive structure 610) are therefore formed of different film materials.
Other References Considered
The following prior art, although not relied upon in the current rejections of record, is considered relevant to the claims:
Chen et al. (US-20250055108-A1) discloses a housing covered with an insulation layer [0136]. The insulation layer includes an overlapping region [0019, 0022, 0048, 0096-0097, 0111, 0114].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/19/2026
Prosecution Insights