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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, drawn to a battery module in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2023, 04/30/2024, and 08/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjacent battery cells" in clause 3, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1 because claim 1 does not recite “adjacent battery cells” prior to the recitation in clause 3, line 4. “The adjacent battery cells” is further indefinite, because claim 1 does not specify which of the battery cells are adjacent. As such, it is unclear whether the claims require a functional material between any adjacent cells, or if the functional material is required to be between each pair of adjacent cells.
Claims 2-4 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "The battery cell" in clause 1, line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 2 because claim 2 does not recite “a battery cell” prior to the recitation in clause 1, line 1. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of battery cells” and it is unclear in claim 2 that which cell is being modified. The examiner further notes that the preamble in claim 2 is inconsistent with the preamble recited in claim 1. (“a battery cell” is suggested).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 20210184488 A1), and further in view of Cho et al. (US 20230307792 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yokoyama teaches a battery module (battery module 10 in Fig. 2, [0062]) comprising a plurality of battery cells (plurality of battery cells 11 in Fig. 2, [0062]) and a material located between the adjacent battery cells ([0064]: resin spacers 12, arranged between the adjacent battery cells 11 in Fig. 4). Yokoyama further teaches that the resin spacer 12 maintains spacing and insulation between the battery cells in a battery module under compression [0064-0066]. Yokoyama is silent regarding the composition of the resin spacer, and thus does not teach a limitation wherein the material located between adjacent cells is a function material that includes an elastic particle, and a binder in which the elastic particle is dispersed. The meaning of function material is interpreted in light of specification as a material that elastically deforms under compression to apply a pressurizing force to the battery cells and reduce shear stress in the electrodes ([0026] of the instant application).
However, Cho teaches this limitation wherein a function material (an elastic sheet 500, [0031]) includes an elastic particle (elastic particle and acrylic resin organic hollow particle [0011, 0049]), and a binder (acrylic resin [0034, 0038]; in light of specification as a binder is acrylic resin (see [0022] of instant application)) in which the elastic particle is dispersed ([0034, 0056-0057]: dispersibility of elastic particle in elastic sheet). Cho further teaches that this elastic sheet is used to alleviate the stress transmitted during the pressing when manufacturing the all-solid-state battery and the stress generated according to the thickness change of the battery during repeated charges and discharges [0008]. Thus, Cho teaches a material including the elastic particle dispersed in a binder that performs a stress buffering function, consistent with the function material described in the instant specification. Further, Yokoyama, and Cho are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the spacer material of Yokoyama in the battery module under compression to be a function material by using the elastic particle- binder composition as taught by Cho in order to alleviate the stress transmitted during the pressing of battery cells.
Regarding claim 2, Yokoyama, as modified by Cho, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Yokoyama does not explicitly teach a limitation wherein a compression force deflection at 25 °C and 10 % deflection of the function material is equal to or more than 3.0 kPa and equal to or less than 10 kPa, and the compression force deflection at 70 °C and 70 % deflection of the function material is equal to or more than 0.40 MPa and equal to or less than 0.60 MPa. However, Cho teaches the elastic sheet including acrylic resin organic hollow particle ([0011, 0034, 0049]). Cho further discloses that the hollow particles are spherical ([0045]) and have a particle diameter of 2-100 μm, which overlaps with the range of 75-300 μm mentioned in the instant application (see [0021] of instant specification). Cho further teaches that elastic sheet may include an ultraviolet cured acrylic resin [0034, 0038, 0065, 0184], corresponding to the ultraviolet cured acrylic resin binder described in paragraph [0022] of the instant application. Additionally, Cho discloses an elastic sheet thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.8 mm ([0070]), which overlaps with the instant specification range of 0.1 -1.5 mm in the uncompressed state (see [0023] of instant specification). In view of the similarities in composition, structure, particle shape, thickness, and particle size, the function material of modified Yokoyama is substantially identical or identical to the claimed function material (see specification [0019-0023]). Thus, Yokoyama, as modified by Cho discloses the same type of material as claimed. Further, Cho teaches that the elastic sheet needs to have a compressive strength such that it has sufficient buffering ability to relieve stress and to repeat compression and restoration. In other words, the compressive mechanical properties of the elastic sheet, including the compression force deflection, affect the ability of the material to provide buffering and stress relief during battery operation, thereby identifying the compression force deflection as a results-effective variable ([0034, 0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compressive force deflection of the modified resin spacer/function material of Yokoyama by applying the materials and design considerations of Cho in order to provide a sufficient buffering ability and to relieve stress ([0034, 0071]). Optimizing the compression force deflection within workable ranges, including the claimed range, would have been achieved through routine optimization. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II), see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d (CCPA 1955) . In addition, where the prior art discloses a product that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed product, it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art product inherently possesses the same properties, including a compression force deflection, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, it would have been expected that resin spacer/function material of Yokoyama, as modified by Cho, necessarily exhibit a compression force deflection, as claimed. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 3, Yokoyama, as modified by Cho, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Cho further teaches a limitation wherein the elastic particle is a resinous hollow particle ([0049]). Cho further teaches that incorporating resinous hollow particle into a resin composition increases the compressive strength of the elastic sheet and enables the formation of a foam structure ([0036, 0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the elastic particle of modified Yokoyama to be a resinous hollow particle as taught by Cho in order to increase compressive strength of the resin composition and achieve a foam structure while maintaining density ([0036, 0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Yokoyama, as modified by Cho, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Cho further teaches a limitation wherein the binder is an acrylic resin [0034]. Cho further teaches that acrylic resins exhibit excellent or suitable stress relaxation properties due to low crosslinking density and random crosslinking structure ([0039]).
Therefore, , it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the binder of modified Yokoyama to be an acrylic resin as taught by Cho in order to provide excellent or suitable stress relaxation properties ([0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights