DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are presented for examination, wherein claim 1 is currently amended; plus, claims 7-8 are withdrawn.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn, as a result of the September 13, 2026 filing, which is entered.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn, as a result of the September 13, 2026 filing, which is entered.
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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al (US 2013/0157084).
Regarding newly amended independent claim 1, Bang teaches a battery pack (e.g. item 100) with a compact structure that provides long-term use and portability, suitable for use in e.g. a laptop computer, said battery pack comprising
(i) a battery array (e.g. item 30) including two or more, such as three, pouch-shaped secondary battery cells (e.g. items 32),
wherein each cell may have an approximately hexahedral, plate-shaped structure with a small thickness to width ratio,
wherein each cell may have an upper flat surface and a lower flat surface;
(ii) a pack case in which said battery array is disposed, wherein said pack case is composed of a lower case (e.g. item 10) and an upper case (e.g. item 20), said upper case covering said lower case to fix said battery array in place; and
(iii) a pair of upper spacers (e.g. items 52) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each upper flat surface of said cells,
each of said upper spacers mounted and fixed between its respective outer lateral edge of said upper flat surface of said cell and an inner surface of said upper case,
a first space between said pair of upper spacers forming a space above each said cell, said first space accommodating an increase in thickness of said cell during charging and discharging; plus,
(iv) a pair of lower spacers (e.g. items 50) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each lower flat surface of said cells,
each of said lower spacers mounted and fixed between its respective outer lateral edge of said lower flat surface of said cell and an inner surface of said lower case,
a second space between said pair of lower spacers forming a space below each said cell, said second space accommodating an increase in thickness of said cell during charging and discharging,
wherein each of said upper spacers and said lower spacers may be double-sided tape, such as Nomex
(e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 09-12, 21, 38-40, 46-47, 64-70 plus e.g. Figures 1-2), reading on “battery pack,” said battery pack comprising:
(1) said pack case in which said battery array is disposed, wherein said pack case is composed of said lower case (e.g. item 10) and said upper case (e.g. item 20), said upper case covering said lower case to fix said battery array in place (e.g. supra), reading on “a battery case;” and,
(2) said battery array (e.g. item 30) including two or more, such as three, pouch-shaped secondary battery cells (e.g. items 32), said battery array fixed within said pack case,
wherein each cell may have said approximately hexahedral, plate-shaped structure with said small thickness to width ratio, each of said cells including said upper flat surface and said lower flat surface, (e.g. supra),
said taught lower flat surface corresponding with the claimed “first plane;” and,
said taught upper flat surface corresponding with the claimed “second plane,”
reading on “a battery housed in the battery case, the battery being configured of a pouch type cell having a first plane and a second plane disposed on an opposite side of the first plane;” and,
(3) said pair of upper spacers (e.g. items 52) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each upper flat surface of said cells,
each of said upper spacers mounted and fixed between its respective outer lateral edge of said upper flat surface of said cell and said inner surface of said upper case
said first space between said pair of upper spacers forming said space above each said cell, said first space accommodating an increase in thickness of said cell during charging and discharging; plus,
said pair of lower spacers (e.g. items 50) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each lower flat surface of said cells,
each of said lower spacers mounted and fixed between its respective outer lateral edge of said lower flat surface of said cell and said inner surface of said lower case
said second space between said pair of lower spacers forming said space below each said cell, said second space accommodating an increase in thickness of said cell during charging and discharging,
wherein each of said upper spacers and said lower spacers may be double-sided tape (e.g. supra),
said taught upper spacer being said double-sided tape and/or said lower spacer being double-sided tape corresponding with the claimed “adhesive layer,”
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, “at least one,” see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “an adhesive layer arranged between at least one of the first plane and the second plane of the battery and an inner surface of the battery case” and “the adhesive layer being arranged in a shape of a frame along an outer edge of the battery.”
Regarding the newly added limitation wherein the adhesive layer “being formed by applying an adhesive material and subsequently solidifying the adhesive material,” the method of applying and solidifying the adhesive layer is a product-by-process limitation, and does not patentably distinguish the instantly claimed adhesive layer and battery pack, see e.g. MPEP § 2113. See further instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶0048.
Regarding claim 2, Bang teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein said pair of upper spacers (e.g. items 52) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each upper flat surface of said cells, each of said upper spacers mounted and fixed between its respective outer lateral edge of said upper flat surface of said cell and said inner surface of said upper case; and, said pair of lower spacers (e.g. items 50) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each lower flat surface of said cells, each of said lower spacers mounted and fixed between its respective outer lateral edge of said lower flat surface of said cell and said inner surface of said lower case,
wherein each of said upper spacers and said lower spacers may be double-sided tape (e.g. supra),
an exterior one of said pair or lower spacers (which may be said double-sided tape)—located to a distal side of said taught battery array corresponds with the claimed “adhesive layer;” and,
an interior one of said pair or lower spacers (which may be said double-sided tape)—located proximal to a center of said taught battery array , which may be said double-sided tape, corresponds with the claimed “double-sided layer,”
reading on “the inner surface of the battery case includes a first inner surface facing the first plane and a second inner surface facing the second plane, the adhesive layer is arranged on the first plane and the second plane of the battery, the first inner surface of the battery case and the first plane of the battery are fixed with each other by a double-sided tape disposed on an inner side of the adhesive layer,” as claimed,
wherein said first space between said pair of upper spacers forming said space above each said cell, said first space accommodating an increase in thickness of said cell during charging and discharging; and, said second space between said pair of lower spacers forming said space below each said cell, said second space accommodating an increase in thickness of said cell during charging and discharging, wherein each of said upper spacers and said lower spacers may be said double-sided tape (e.g. supra), so each of said first and second spaces would have a thickness that is about equal to one another (i.e. a thickness of said double-sided tape), said teaching is sufficiently close to the claimed relationship “larger than,” to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a distance between the second inner surface of the battery case and the second plane of the battery is larger than a distance between the first inner surface of the battery case and the first plane of the battery,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Bang teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein said pair of upper spacers (e.g. items 52) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each upper flat surface of said cells, each of said upper spacers mounted and fixed between its respective outer lateral edge of said upper flat surface of said cell and said inner surface of said upper case;
said pair of lower spacers (e.g. items 50) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each lower flat surface of said cells, each of said lower spacers mounted and fixed between its respective outer lateral edge of said lower flat surface of said cell and said inner surface of said lower case;
wherein each of said upper spacers and said lower spacers may be double-sided tape, such as Nomex
(e.g. supra), noting
an exterior one of said pair or upper spacers (which may be said double-sided tape)—located to a distal side of said taught battery array corresponds with the claimed “adhesive layer;” and,
an interior one of said pair or upper spacers (which may be said double-sided tape)—located proximal to a center of said taught battery array , which may be said double-sided tape, corresponds with the claimed “buffer material,”
reading on “the second plane of the battery includes a buffer material,” wherein each of said upper spacers and said lower spacers may be said double-sided tape, so would have identical properties, including elastic coefficient, sufficiently close to the claimed relationship “smaller,” to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “having a smaller elastic coefficient than the adhesive layer,” as claimed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang et al (US 2013/0157084), as provided supra, in view of Suzuki (US 2014/0023909).
Regarding claim 4, Bang teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein said pair of upper spacers (e.g. items 52) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each upper flat surface of said cells; plus, said pair of lower spacers (e.g. items 50) oppositely mounted and fixed on outer lateral edges of each lower flat surface of said cells,
wherein each of said upper spacers and said lower spacers may be double-sided tape (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitation “the adhesive layer has a width dimension of 0.5 mm or more and 10 mm or less.”
However, teaches a Suzuki teaches a battery pack that is formed by connecting a plurality of secondary unit batteries that include two strips of two-sided adhesive tape (e.g. items 460) attached to an upper main surface of a unit battery (e.g. items 100),
wherein said two-sided adhesive tape (e.g. items 460) are used to fix a first unit battery (e.g. item 100), which is attached to a holder member (e.g. item 200), to a second unit battery (e.g. item 100), which is to be attached to said holder member,
wherein said two-sided adhesive tape may have a width of 6 mm (e.g. ¶¶ 0002, 105, 109-122, and 136 plus e.g. Figures 11-12, and 14-16).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Suzuki tape, with said width of 6 mm, for the Bang tape, since Suzuki teaches its tape is suitable for use in a battery pack, said Suzuki tape with said width of 6 mm establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the adhesive layer has a width dimension of 0.5 mm or more and 10 mm or less.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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:
Regarding claim 3, none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed battery of claim 3, said adhesive layer of claim 1 with the property of a maximum tensile stress of 2 N/m2 or more and 5 N/mm2 or less. See further instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0048 and 57.
Regarding claim 6, none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed components and relationships therebetween of the battery of claim 6, including the limitations of independent claim 1 and intervening claim 5. See further instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0020, 23, 31-32, and 47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant alleges the following.
Applicant respectfully submits that neither Bang nor the other cited prior art references have been found to teach or suggest claim features of “an adhesive layer arranged between at least one of the first plane and the second plane of the battery and an inner surface of the battery case, the adhesive layer being arranged in a shape of a frame along an outer edge of the battery and being formed by applying an adhesive material and subsequently solidifying the adhesive material” as recited by amended claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig. 6 above and described in paragraph [0046] of the Specification, in the present invention, the adhesive layer (25a/25b) is provided in a frame shape along an outer edge of the battery (9). In contrast, in Bang, the spacers are arranged in an array. For example, as shown in Fig. 2 of Bang (reproduced below) the four spacers 521 to 524 constituting the spacer 52 are arranged parallel to one another.
PNG
media_image2.png
476
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Bang cannot be construed to teach claim features of “the adhesive layer being arranged in a shape of a frame along an outer edge of the battery” as recited by claim 1. Additionally, by providing the adhesive layer in a frame shape, the present invention achieves the advantageous effect of reducing the amount of material, such as an adhesive, used, as described in paragraph [0036].
Further, as amended, claim 1 now recites that the adhesive layer is formed by applying an adhesive material and subsequently solidifying the applied material. In contrast, Bang discloses that the spacers 50 and 52 are formed of double-sided adhesive tape (see paragraph [0069]).
[0069] The upper case 20 and the lower case 10 are formed of a plastic material, and the spacers 50 and 52 are formed of a double-sided adhesive tape, such as Nomex.
Accordingly, Bang has not been found to teach or suggest that the adhesive layer is formed by applying an adhesive material and subsequently solidifying the applied material as required by amended claim 1. Additionally, by forming the adhesive layer from an adhesive material, it is possible to prevent an unnecessarily large gap from being formed between the battery and the battery case bonded together by the adhesive layer (see paragraph [0048]).
(Remarks, at 7:4-10:1, emphasis in the original.)
In response, regarding the limitation “the adhesive layer being arranged in a shape of a frame along an outer edge of the battery” (emphasis added), the examiner respectfully notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as claimed.
While it appears that the applicant is alleging the “shape of a frame” and “along an outer edge of the battery” is for a shape of a frame along an entire outer edge—along all four sides—of the battery, that is not what is currently claimed, as claimed.
Further, regarding the newly added limitation wherein the adhesive layer “being formed by applying an adhesive material and subsequently solidifying the adhesive material,” the method of applying and solidifying the adhesive layer is a product-by-process limitation, and does not patentably distinguish the instantly claimed adhesive layer and battery pack, see e.g. MPEP § 2113. See further instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶0048.
Second, the applicant alleges the following.
The other cited prior art references have not been found to remedy these deficiencies of Bang.
Thus, as the cited prior art references have not been found to teach, suggest, or render obvious each feature of claim 1, claim 1 is believed to be allowable. The dependent claims are likewise believed to be allowable at least for their dependency on an allowable base claim as well as for the additional features they recite. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
(Remarks, at 10:2-10:3.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baek (US 2023/0216157);
Yoo et al (US 2020/0343499);
Lee (US 2020/0044202);
Lee et al (US 2018/0269436);
Moon (US 2007/0065718);
Watanabe et al (US 2005/0130030); and,
Kaneda et al (US 6743546).
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 YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights