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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 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.
Each of claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 recites language indicting the recess has the length L or the width W. However, the limitations lack proper antecedent basis in claim 1. This claim recites “heat insulating recesses forming an air layer having a length (L)… and a width (W).” Thus, claim 1 recites that it is the air layer (not the recess) that has the recited length and width. Correction is required, as the air layer is not the same as the recess.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US 20050053829). Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a battery pack comprising cylindrical rechargeable battery cells (22) positioned parallel to one another, a heat resistant wall (spacer 24) disposed between the battery cells (Figs. 1 and 3), and an exterior case (2b, 2c) housing the cells and the wall. The wall has heat insulating recesses (26) provided in surfaces thereof, each of the surfaces facing a surface of a corresponding battery cell and having a corresponding one of the recesses therein, the recesses forming an air layer having a length (L) in a longitudinal direction of the cells and a width (W) in a circumferential direction of the cells (Figs. 1 and 2, abstract). Regarding claim 2, the recesses with length L extend across both ends of the corresponding battery cells and are open at the both ends of the corresponding battery cells (Figs. 1 and 2). The central recess on each side (26) with width W includes a closest point at which peripheral surfaces of the battery cells are closest to each other (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 12, the width of the recesses (central recess on each side) is 15% or more of an outer diameter of the cells (Fig. 3, which is to scale as showing relative dimensions). Regarding claim 14, in each of the recesses the edge of the battery touches the recess, which meets the language of a minimum gap being “5 mm or less” (the gap is 0 mm). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-6, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han.
The reference is applied to claims 1-3, 12 and 14 for the reasons stated above. Regarding claim 5, the wall has plural outer grooves therein on both sides of the recesses (in the vertical direction in Fig. 3, one groove shown as bottom element “26”). The plural grooves have openings disposed on the surface of the battery cells (bottom element “26”). Regarding claim 6, the plate includes bent pieces (pieces extending at 90 degree angle, that is, horizontally in Figure 3) and the outer grooves are formed between the bent pieces and the surface of the cells.
However, the reference does not expressly teach that the wall comprises two plates stacked on each other (claim 4), that the width W of the (central) recess is 60% or less of the outer diameter of the cells (claim 13), or that the battery pack further comprises temperature sensors disposed between the wall and the surface of the battery cell (claim 15).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because initially, although the wall is shown as an integral H-shaped member in the reference, it has been held that making elements separable is within the skill of the art (MPEP 2144.04). The functionality of the wall in Han would be the same in the integral H-shaped structure vs. a structure made with two pieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use two plates stacked on each other and joined at the center as recited in claim 4.
Regarding the dimension recited in claim 13, the width of the central heat insulating recess in Han (which as pictured appears to be larger than 60% of the cell diameter), could be adjusted by a skilled artisan to control the size of the gap between the wall and the battery cell, thus providing sufficient space for gas outflow and temperature control. Thus, a smaller dimension (60% or less) would be within the skill of the art, and accordingly, the claimed range is considered to be obvious.
Regarding claim 15, the use of temperature sensors is conventional in the art and it would have been obvious to use such sensors in a location between the wall and the battery cell in Han, to monitor the temperature of the cells, thereby increasing safety. Accordingly, claim 15 is also rendered obvious. Claim 16 is also rendered obvious for the same reasons.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claims 4-6, 13, 15, and 16 above, and further in view of Tada (US 20200358063).
Han does not expressly teach that the heat resistant plates are inorganic (claim 9), or mica plates that are bent (claim 10).
Tada et al. teaches battery pack thermally insulating partition plates (30) that are made of mica ([0052]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the plates of Han out of mica, and such plates would be bent as recited in the claims. As such, claims 9 and 10 would be rendered obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 11, 17 and 18 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7, which depends from claim 4, recites that the wall has an inner groove therein disposed between edge portions of the two plates stacked on each other and between outer grooves out of the plural outer grooves provided on each side of the wall, the inner groove having an opening closed by an inner surface of the exterior case. Han, the closest prior art, teaches an inner groove in its unitary structure (shown near “24” in Fig. 3), however, such inner groove is not between two plates (the modification of the structure to two plates proposed in rejection above), and the inner groove is also not “between outer grooves” as claimed. Thus, claim 7 contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 17 recites, among other limitations, a voltage detection line being disposed in one of the outer grooves. Han also does not teach or fairly suggest this subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
March 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights