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 without traverse of Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on May 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nasu et al. (US 20220336818 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nasu teaches a battery module including power storage element 200 formed of cells 100 comprised of electrodes and electrolyte (paragraphs 0026-0029, 0127-0130; meets claimed electricity storage module). Nasu further teaches a battery outer container 140, of resin layer 140a, metal layer 140b, resin layer 140c, in which the power storage element 200 is housed and elastic member 130, which can be a metal sheet, disposed over each end face of the power storage element 200 and the resin layer 140a of the battery outer container surrounding the periphery of the metal elastic member (paragraph 0130-0131 and Fig. 2A; meets claimed housing for electricity storage module with a pair of sheet-shaped structures including a metal sheet that is disposed over an end face of the electricity storage module in the thickness direction, and a laminated sheet that is disposed so as to surround a periphery of the metal sheet). Nasu teaches that the metal elastic member has conductivity to achieve electrical connection with the power storage element 200 (paragraph 0165; meets claimed metal sheet is electrically connected to the electricity storage module). Nasu teaches that resin layer 140a is heat fusible and acts as a sealing layer and is in contact with the metal elastic member on a periphery of the elastic member (paragraph 0145, 0155, Fig. 2A where inner side surface of 140a is joined to side surface of elastic member 130; meets an inner side surface of the laminated sheet is joined to a side surface of the metal sheet). Nasu teaches the battery outer container 140 on upper and lower surface joined together via resin layer 140a as sealing layer (paragraph 0147, Fig. 2A; meets claimed in a pair of the sheet-shaped structures, outer circumferential parts of the laminated sheets are directly or indirectly joined to each other).
Regarding claim 4, Nasu teaches the battery module is a plurality of laminated bipolar batteries (paragraph 0244; meets claimed bipolar electricity storage module).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nasu et al. (US 20220336818 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nasu teaches the thickness of the battery outer container 140 composed of a resin layer 140 a , a metal layer 140 b , and a resin layer 140 c, is not particularly limited and the thickness of the elastic member 130 is not particularly limited as well (paragraphs 141-152 and 177).
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 thickness of the metal elastic member (metal sheet) to be greater than that of the battery outer container 140 (laminated sheet) as taught by Nasu as one option for relationship between the thicknesses because the thickness of each is not particularly limited and either can be thicker than the other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Nasu teaches a separate embodiment with frame body surrounding the power storage element. The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the combination of housing with a laminated sheet disposed so as to surround a periphery of the metal sheet and inner side surface of the laminated sheet is joined to a side surface of the metal sheet as claimed in claim 1 which additionally includes a frame-shaped member disposed to surround periphery of the electricity storage module with laminated sheet of each of the sheet shaped structures joined to opposite faces of the frame-shaped member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT whose telephone number is (571)270-0240. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights