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 .
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 5-7, 9, 11-14, and 17, and thus their respective dependents, 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 5 recites “wherein the polymer coating layer is located on 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the positive active material”.
Claim 1, of which claim 5 depends, states “at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion comprises a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions”.
However, claim 5 recites that the polymer coating layer is located on 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the positive active material, not 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the positive active material of the positive bend portion.
Claim 5, as written, implies that the polymer coating layer can be on all surfaces of the particles of the positive active material regardless of whether the particles are in the positive flat straight portion or positive bend portion, however, this is unclear as claim 1 only recited the polymer coating layer in relation to the positive bend portion.
Further, it is unclear if this claim means that the polymer coating layer is located on more than just the positive bend portion, such as being on 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the positive active material regardless of where the particles are in the positive electrode plate, or if 80% to 100% of the positive active material particles are located at the positive bend portion.
If 100% of the particles of the positive active material of the positive electrode plate has the polymer layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions thereon, then the positive electrode plate may have no lithium ion conductivity.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to recite “wherein the polymer coating layer is located on 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the positive active material of the positive bend portion”.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the polymer coating layer comprises one or more selected from a plasticizer and an electrolyte salt”.
Claim 6 depends upon claim 1 which recites “a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions”.
It is unclear how the polymer coating layer would obstruct migration of active ions if the polymer coating layer includes an electrolyte salt.
Applicant recites “In any embodiment of this application, the polymer coating layer further includes one or more selected from a plasticizer and an electrolyte salt… The electrolyte salt increases the ionic conductivity of the polymer coating layer” (P11).
As said by Applicant, the electrolyte salt increases the ionic conductivity of the polymer coating layer, therefore, it is unclear how a polymer coating layer including an electrolyte salt would provide a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions.
Claim 7 recites “wherein, based on a total mass of the polymer coating layer, the polymer coating layer comprises a polymer at a mass percent in a range from 5% to 100%, the plasticizer at a mass percent in a range from 0% to 80%, and the electrolyte salt at a mass percent in a range from 0% to 20%.”
Claim 7 depends upon claim 6 which recites “wherein the polymer coating layer comprises one or more selected from a plasticizer and an electrolyte salt.”
It is unclear how the polymer coating layer can include 100% of “a polymer”, 0% of “the plasticizer”, and 0% of “the electrolyte salt”, as allowed by the ranges set forth in claim 7, if claim 6 states that the polymer coating layer comprises at least a plasticizer or an electrolyte salt.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the monomer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear which monomer of the “at least one monomer” is “the monomer”.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the monomer comprises both the first monomer and the second monomer, and a mass ratio of the first monomer to the second monomer is in a range from (1 to 99):(99 to 1)”.
Claim 1, of which claim 11 ultimately depends, is a product claim. Claim 1 recites a polymer coating layer. Claim 8 and thus claim 9, of which claim 11 also depends from, is a product-by-process claim. Claim 9 recites that “the monomer” of claim 8 can include a first monomer and second monomer.
It is not clear how reactive the first monomer and second monomers are or that their final mass ratio is maintained in the final polymer coating layer. For example, if the first monomer is going to have a polymerizable bond or a ring opening effect, are we losing pieces of these monomers along the process route? It is not clear what the final mass ratio of the monomer units is in the obtained polymer.
The limitations of claim 11 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the carbonate monomer", “the sulfate monomer”, “the sulfonate monomer”, “the phosphate monomer”, “the carboxylate monomer”, “the sulfone monomer”, “the amide monomer”, “the nitrile monomer”, “the ether monomer”, and “the acrylate monomer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Given it is unclear what these monomers are referring to, prior art will not be applied in regards to claim 12 until the clarity issues are fixed.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the coating composition further comprises one or more selected from a plasticizer and an electrolyte salt.”
Claim 1, of which claim 13 ultimately depends, is a product claim. Claim 1 recites a polymer coating layer. Claim 8 of which claim 13 also depends from, is a product-by-process claim.
It is unclear if the plasticizer or salt is subsequently removed in the process recited by claim 8 to form the final obtained polymer coating layer.
The limitations of claim 13 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product.
Claim 14 recites “wherein, based on a total mass of the coating composition, the coating composition comprises a monomer at a mass percent in a range from 5% to 100%, the plasticizer at a mass percent in a range from 0% to 80%, and the electrolyte salt at a mass percent in a range from 0% to 20%”.
Claim 1, of which claim 14 ultimately depends, is a product claim. Claim 1 recites a polymer coating layer. Claim 8 of which claim 14 depends from via claim 13, is a product-by-process claim. Claim 13 recites that the coating composition further comprises one or more selected from a plasticizer and an electrolyte salt.
It is not clear how reactive the plasticizer or electrolyte salt are or that their final mass ratio is maintained in the final polymer coating layer. For example, are the plasticizer or electrolyte salt used up during the formation process? It is not clear what the final mass ratio of the plasticizer and electrolyte salt are in the obtained polymer.
The limitations of claim 14 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the monomer” and “the initiator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Given it is unclear which monomer “the monomer” is referring to, and what “initiator” is being referred to, prior art will not be applied in regards to claim 12 until the clarity issues are fixed.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kasamatsu et al (US 20190386344 A1, as given in the 05/14/2024 IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Kasamatsu disclose a secondary battery (see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P1, 12, 16, 41-42) including an electrode assembly (electrode body 10 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P10), comprising:
a negative electrode plate (negative electrode plate 14 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P17; and
a positive electrode plate containing a positive active material (positive electrode plate 13 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P17, 19, 24-25), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive bend portion and a positive flat straight portion connected to the positive bend portion (positive bend portion is drawn to at least one of bend portions 12 in Fig. 1; positive flat straight portion is drawn to the straight portions of electrode group 11 shown between bend portions 12 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P17);
wherein:
at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion comprises a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions (resin tape 16 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P18, 20-21); and
a ratio of an ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to an ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion satisfies 0 ≤λ1/λ2< 1 (the resin tape includes a base layer that does not pass lithium ions (P20) and is only on the bent portions 12; the positive flat straight portion includes positive electrode mix layers 13b having lithium ion conductivity (P19) and does not include the resin tape; therefore, the ionic conductivity of the positive bend portion is less than the ionic conductivity of the positive flat straight portion).
The limitation of “a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions” renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the resin tape 16 of Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Kasamatsu discloses wherein the electrode assembly has a jelly-roll structure, and the positive bend portion is at least an innermost one of a plurality of positive bend portions in the jelly-roll structure (see Figs. 1-2 and P18).
Regarding claim 4, Kasamatsu discloses wherein a thickness of the polymer coating layer is 0.01 μm to 50 μm (in the Example set forth in P38, the resin tape had a thickness of 15 µm in total (12 µm for the base layer and 3 µm for the adhesive)).
Regarding claim 5, Kasamatsu discloses wherein the polymer coating layer is located on 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the positive active material of the positive bend portion (the resin tape is adhered to the positive bend portion, therefore, it is “located on” (indirectly or directly) 100% of the active material particles of the bend portion located underneath of the tape).
Regarding claim 6, instead of the resin tape 16, the polymer coating layer of Kasamatsu could be drawn to the microporous film separator 15 of Kasamatsu (P17, 27).
The separator is made of a microporous film containing polymers such as polyethylene and polypropylene, therefore, making it a polymer layer. The separator would sit on the positive bend portion (thus at least part of the positive active materials of the positive bend portion) of the positive electrode plate of the electrode assembly.
Given the separator is porous, it would comprise some of the electrolyte therein.
The electrolyte of the battery of Kasamatsu can include ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, or methyl propyl carbonate (P28-29), which are listed as plasticizers in Applicant’s specification at P11. The electrolyte of the battery of Kasamatsu can further include a lithium salt (P28, 30).
Therefore, the separator of Kasamatsu can be drawn to the claimed “polymer coating layer” comprising a plasticizer and an electrolyte salt.
The Examiner notes that since the positive bend portion would still include the resin tape 16, the interpretation above would still meet the limitation “a ratio of an ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to an ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion satisfies 0 ≤λ1/λ2< 1”.
The limitation of “a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions” renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, Kasamatsu’s separator 15 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the separator 15 of Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 comprises a base material layer include polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
The limitation of “the polymer coating layer is formed by in-situ polymerizing and curing a coating composition that comprises at least one monomer” renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the resin tape 16 of Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 comprises a base material layer include polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
The requirements of the first monomer being “ring-opening polymerizable” or comprising a “polymerizable unsaturated bond” does not impart any implicit structure to the final product other than that the final product is a polymer, because the monomer’s “ring-opening polymerizable” or “polymerizable unsaturated bond” could be used up/disappear in subsequent method steps of achieving the resin tape that already reads upon claim 1 and includes at least one monomer. The cross-linkable feature also adds no implicit structure.
Regarding claim 11, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 comprises a base material layer include polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
As seen in the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, the limitations of claim 11 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product, therefore, the resin tape 16 of Kasamatsu meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 comprises a base material layer include polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
As seen in the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, the limitations of claim 13 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product, therefore, the resin tape 16 of Kasamatsu meets the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 comprises a base material layer include polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
As seen in the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, the limitations of claim 14 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product, therefore, the resin tape 16 of Kasamatsu meets the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein a viscosity of the coating composition is in a range from 3 cp to 100 cp”.
Claim 15 does not reference the finalized polymer coating layer, but instead the coating composition that is cured to form the polymer coating layer. This coating composition is used within a method of making the polymer coating layer and does not impart final structure to the final product of the polymer coating layer.
As stated in the rejection of claim 8, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 comprises a base material layer include polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
The limitation of “the polymer coating layer is formed by in-situ polymerizing and curing a coating composition that comprises at least one monomer”, and thus the recitation of “wherein a viscosity of the coating composition is in a range from 3 cp to 100 cp”, renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the resin tape 16 of Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 comprises a base material layer include polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
The limitation of “wherein a polymerization method used to form the polymer coating layer by in-situ polymerizing and curing the monomer comprises one or more selected from light-initiated polymerization, radiation-initiated polymerization, and initiator-initiated polymerization” renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the resin tape 16 of Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu et al (US 20190386344 A1, as given in the 05/14/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Oono (US 20210305619 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kasamatsu does not explicitly state wherein the ratio of the ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to the ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion satisfies0 ≤λ1/λ2≤ 0.9.
In a similar field of endeavor, Oono teaches as the thickness of an ionic conductive polymer layer decrease, the resistance decreases (P58).
From the teaching of Oono, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ionic resistivity/ionic conductivity of a polymer layer is a result-effective variable based upon the thickness of the polymer layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized, through routine experimentation, the ionic conductivity / ionic resistivity of the positive bend portion (thereby, optimizing the ratio of the ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to the ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion) based upon the skilled artisan’s desired thicknesses for the resin tape of Kasamatsu to have at the positive bend portion. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu et al (US 20190386344 A1, as given in the 05/14/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 6, further in view of Obana et al (US 20070026311 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kasamatsu is silent to the mass percents of the pieces of the polymer coating layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Obana teaches a lithium secondary battery including a cathode, anode, and separator in-between (P16). Obana teaches the battery further includes a liquid electrolyte impregnated into the separator, wherein the liquid electrolyte includes a solvent and electrolyte salt (P52).
Obana teaches the porosity of the separator is in the range from 30 volume % to 80 volume %, and more preferably in the range from 35 volume % to 50 volume % (P51). Obana teaches when the porosity is low, ion conductivity is lowered; meanwhile, when the porosity is high, short circuit may occur (P51).
Although the prior art to Obana teaches the volume percent versus the mass percent of these entities as claimed, the prior art is in effect providing workable or optimized ranges for the amounts of these components, just utilizing a different metric. Accordingly, the prior art is providing the necessary teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation to determine workable ranges for these components, wherein the courts have held, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, it is noted that the ranges presented are very large (e.g., the polymer amount spans almost all known options at 5-100% and just missing 1-4.99%; the plasticizer spans 0-80% with only 1/5 of the possible range missing, etc., wherein the Examiner has reviewed the instant application disclosure for criticality of the ranges and none was found. Accordingly, it is noted that in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence exists that spans the entire ranges presented, the determination of optimum or workable amounts to achieve a polymer coating composition that is suitable for its intended use is not inventive (see “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu et al (US 20190386344 A1, as given in the 05/14/2024 IDS) as applied to claim 18, further in view of Morimoto (US 20040061503 A1).
Regarding claims 19-20, Kasamatsu does not disclose the secondary battery is provided within a battery module that is provided within a battery pack.
In a similar field of endeavor, Morimoto teaches a battery power source device employed as a power source for a motor to drive vehicles such as hybrid cars includes a battery pack block, having a plurality of battery modules connected in series, each battery module having a plurality of rechargeable batteries (P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Morimoto and selected the secondary battery of Kasamatsu to be provided with a plurality of other secondary battery in a battery module provided inside a battery pack (battery pack block), given Morimoto teaches this allows rechargeable batteries to be used as a power source for a motor to drive vehicles such as hybrid cars.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights