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
Election/Restriction
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/13/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP2019/102332, Machine translation)
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe et al. teaches a laminated battery [1, Fig. 1, 0022], comprising:
a battery element [40, Fig. 1, 0022, 0157]; and
a laminate exterior body that seals the battery element [entire structure in Fig. 3, 0027-0028],
wherein:
the laminate exterior body [100, Fig. 4, 0028] includes at least a resin layer [101, Fig. 4, 0039, 0042] and a metal layer [102, Fig. 4, 0039, 0053] that are laminated,
the battery element [40, Fig. 1, 0022, 0157 includes substantially right-angled portions having angles greater than or equal to 80° and less than or equal to 100°, and horizontal portions that are horizontal shaped [Fig. 4, 0025-0026, and Fig. 1, 0022, 00157], and is silent on
at 80% or more of areas of the metal layer that face the substantially right-angled
portions of the battery element, a thickness T1 of the metal layer satisfies a relationship of the
following formula with respect to a thickness T2 of the metal layer of the laminate exterior
body that faces the horizontal portions of the battery element:
[T1-T2|/T2x100(%) ≤ 10%.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the laminated battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the laminated battery are changed, the precise parameters of the laminated battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “at 80% or more of areas of the metal layer that face the substantially right-angled portions of the battery element, a thickness T1 of the metal layer satisfies a relationship of the following formula with respect to a thickness T2 of the metal layer of the laminate exterior body that faces the horizontal portions of the battery element: [T1-T2|/T2x100(%) ≤ 10%.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the laminated battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Watanabe et al. is silent on wherein a ratio (IT3-T2/T2x100(%)) of a difference
between a thickness T3 of the metal layer at positions that face the horizontal portions of the
battery element and are 1 mm from positions that face the substantially right-angled portions
of the battery element, and the thickness T2 of the metal layer of the laminate exterior body
that faces the horizontal portions of the battery element, is less than or equal to 10%.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the laminated battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the laminated battery are changed, the precise parameters of the laminated battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio (IT3-T2/T2x100(%)) of a difference between a thickness T3 of the metal layer at positions that face the horizontal portions of the battery element and are 1 mm from positions that face the substantially right-angled portions of the battery element, and the thickness T2 of the metal layer of the laminate exterior body that faces the horizontal portions of the battery element, is less than or equal to 10%.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the laminated battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 3, Watanabe et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Watanabe et al. teaches wherein, at positions facing the substantially right-angled portions of the battery element, the laminate exterior body has crest-folded bent portions at three or more places and trough-folded bent portions at one or more places [Fig. 3, Fig. 15, 0027-0028, 0151].
Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Watanabe et al. teaches a battery module having a plurality of laminated batteries that are stacked in a thickness direction, wherein each of the laminated batteries comprises the laminated battery of claim 1 [0084-0085].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights