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 .
STRUCTURAL BATTERY FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/337,181 Art Unit: 1727 September 16, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on April 27, 2026 has been received. Claims 1, 5-12 and 16-26 are currently pending. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12, 16-17 and 19 have been amended Claims 204 and 13-15 have been canceled. Claims 20-26 are newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 8 recite an intended use for a battery. The courts have held that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 12-20 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spooner and Baseri on claims 1 and 7 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spooner, Baseri and Wang on claims 2-4 are withdrawn because Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spooner, Baseri, Wang and Nakazawa on claims 5-6 are withdrawn because Applicant’s amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spooner, Baseri and Wang on claim 8 is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spooner, Baseri, Wang and Nakazawa on claims 10-11 are withdrawn because Applicant’s amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama, Spooner and Baseri on claims 12-13 and 18 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama, Spooner, Baseri and Wang on claims 14-15 and 19 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakayama, Spooner, Baseri, Wang and Nakazawa on claims 16-17 and 20 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the claims.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meitav et al. (US 6,576,365 B1) in view of Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1).
As to Claim 8, Meitav discloses a battery, comprising: a plurality of cells 48,50,48 arranged in a stacked manner and connected in series, wherein the cells comprise a positive electrode layer 48, an electrolyte layer 50, and a negative electrode layer 48 stacked together, and the cells further comprise a positive and negative terminal 24,34 (Abstract, Fig. 5, col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 30). Meitav further discloses upper and lower current collecting layers 20,22 stacked between the outer layers 52 (reads on the structural reinforcement layers stacked on the outermost upper layer and the outermost lower layer of the cells) and the cells (Fig. 5 and col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 30). Meitav further discloses wherein a bipolar current collecting layer 40 is provided between adjacent stacked cells (Fig. 5 and col. 8, lines 1-12). Meitav does not specifically disclose claimed upper, middle and lower layer of cells. However, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance uneless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. Meitav does not specifically disclose wherein the current collectors comprise carbon fiber or the.
However, Baseri teaches of a battery module comprising a plurality of cells and having a carbon fiber current collector for collecting current from the cells (paragraph [0025]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the current collectors of Meitav to comprise carbon fiber because Baseri taches that it is an electrically conductive material for collecting current from cells (paragraph [0025]).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meitav et al. (US 6,576,365 B1) in view of Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Nakazawa et al. (US 2016/0013517 A1).
As to Claims 10-11, modified Meitav does not specifically disclose wherein the separator comprises glass fibers (glass fiber prepegs).
However, Nakazawa teaches of a rechargeable battery, comprising a separator having glass fibers (paragraph [0440]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Meitav to comprise a glass-fiber separator because Nakazawa teaches that such a material can form a porous or nonwoven sheet with excellent liquid retaining properties (paragraph [0440]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meitav et al. (US 6,576,365 B1) in view of Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Arai (US 2017/0226299 A1).
As to Claim 25, modified Meitav does not specifically disclose the claimed carbon fiber prepregs.
However, Arai teaches of using carbon fiber prepregs to form a reinforced composite material that can be used in motor vehicles (such as to reinforce a battery used in a car) (paragraph [0018]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the carbon fiber reinforcement layer of modified Meitav to comprise carbon fiber prepregs because Arai teaches that such a material is excellent in impact resistance and thickness direction conductivity (paragraph [0018]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-7, 12 and 16-23 and 26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior arts of record, Meitav, Spooner, Baseri, Wang, Nakayama, Arai and Nakazawa, do not specifically disclose, teach or fairly suggest the claimed battery and vehicle having the same, wherein the battery comprises the claimed stacked structure with the claimed structure reinforcement layers, carbon fiber current collecting layers in combination with the claimed multi-electrode current collecting layer comprising a conductive solid crystal metal material provided between stacked cells (claims 1 and 12).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 9 and 24 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 9 contains the limitation of wherein the claimed multi-electrode current collecting layer comprising a conductive solid crystal metal material provided between stacked cells (claim 9). The reasons for allowance discussed above apply herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see Remarks, filed April 27, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights