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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the insulating layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al. WO2019107561 (see US 2020/0287256).
With respect to claim 1, Honda et al. discloses a partition member 1 that separates objects 200 to be separated from each other [Figures 6-7], the partition member 1 comprising:
a porous sheet 110 [0014]; and
a water absorbing material provided at least either on a surface of the porous sheet or inside the porous sheet [0046-0069]
Although Honda et al. does not directly disclose that the partition member has dimensions of 100 mm x 60 mm the dimensions of the partition member is a variable that can be modified to fit different size battery packs. Thus, the precise claimed dimensions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed dimensions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the dimensions of the partition member to obtain a desired size. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims 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).
A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. A change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04)
Furthermore Although Honda et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the partition member has been stored for 24 hours at a temperature of 250C, a humidity of 40%, and an atmospheric pressure of 1 atm is used as a sample, and a ratio of a water absorption volume when a portion of 10 mm from an lower end of a 60 mm side of the sample is immersed in water for 2 minutes, to a volume of the sample {the water absorption volume (cm3) divided by a volume (cm3) of the partition member} is in a range of 0.1 to 0.9, it is noted that once a partition member is disclosed to comprise a porous sheet and a water absorbing material, wherein the porous sheet is a glass fiber sheet, water absorbing material contains a water absorbing resin, wherein the insulating layer is a resin film and wherein the resin film is made of polypropylene [Honda et al. 0014-0050] it is therefore is substantially the same as the partition member of claim 1, it will, inherently, display recited properties. See MPEP 2112.
Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the partition member of Honda et al. wherein the partition member that has dimensions of 100 mm x 60 mm and has been stored for 24 hours at a temperature of 250C, a humidity of 40%, and an atmospheric pressure of 1 atm is used as a sample, and a ratio of a water absorption volume when a portion of 10 mm from an lower end of a 60 mm side of the sample is immersed in water for 2 minutes, to a volume of the sample {the water absorption volume (cm3) divided by a volume (cm3) of the partition member} is in a range of 0.1 to 0.9, to prevent damage and prevent overheating.
With respect to claim 2, Honda et al. discloses comprising an insulating layer 120 formed on a surface of the porous sheet 110 located in a thickness direction thereof. [Figure 2; 0014-0030]
With respect to claim 3, Honda et al. does disclose wherein a ratio of a thickness of the insulating layer to a thickness of the porous sheet (the thickness of the insulating layer divided by the thickness of the porous sheet) is in a range of 0.0001 to 0.1.
Although Honda et al. does not directly disclose wherein a ratio of a thickness of the insulating layer to a thickness of the porous sheet (the thickness of the insulating layer divided by the thickness of the porous sheet) is in a range of 0.0001 to 0.1, the thickness of the insulation layer and porous sheets is a variable that can be modified to fit different size battery packs. Thus, the precise claimed dimensions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed dimensions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the dimensions of the partition member to obtain a desired size. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims 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).
A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. A change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the partition member of Honda et al. to wherein a ratio of a thickness of the insulating layer to a thickness of the porous sheet (the thickness of the insulating layer divided by the thickness of the porous sheet) is in a range of 0.0001 to 0.1in order to prevent damage and prevent overheating
With respect to claim 4, Honda et al. discloses wherein the porous sheet 110 is a glass fiber sheet. [0014; 0034; Figure 2]
With respect to claim 5, Honda et al. discloses wherein the water absorbing material contains a water absorbing resin. [0014-0040]
With respect to claim 7, Honda et al. discloses wherein the insulating layer 120 is a resin film attached to the porous sheet. [0040; Figure 2]
With respect to claim 8, Honda et al. discloses wherein the resin film is made of polypropylene. [0042]
With respect to claim 9, Although Honda et al. does not directly disclose wherein the partition member that has dimensions of 100 mm x 60 mm and has been stored for 24 hours at a temperature of 250C, a humidity of 40%, and an atmospheric pressure of 1 atm is used as a sample, and a water absorption amount maintenance rate after 30 minutes, relative to a water absorption amount when a portion of 10 mm from a lower end of a 60 mm side of the sample is immersed in water for 2 minutes, is in a range of 60% to 100% by weight, it is noted that once a partition member is disclosed to comprise a porous sheet and a water absorbing material, wherein the porous sheet is a glass fiber sheet, water absorbing material contains a water absorbing resin, wherein the insulating layer is a resin film and wherein the resin film is made of polypropylene [Honda et al. 0014-0050] it is therefore is substantially the same as the partition member of claim 1, it will, inherently, display recited properties. See MPEP 2112.
Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the partition member of Honda et al. to disclose wherein the partition member that has dimensions of 100 mm x 60 mm and has been stored for 24 hours at a temperature of 250C, a humidity of 40%, and an atmospheric pressure of 1 atm is used as a sample, and a water absorption amount maintenance rate after 30 minutes, relative to a water absorption amount when a portion of 10 mm from a lower end of a 60 mm side of the sample is immersed in water for 2 minutes, is in a range of 60% to 100% by weight, to prevent damage and prevent overheating.
With respect to claim 10, Honda et al. discloses wherein the partition member separates a battery and a member other than the battery from each other. [Figures 6-7]
With respect to claim 11, Honda et al. discloses a battery module comprising the partition member according to claim 1. [Figures 6-7]
With respect to claim 12, Honda et al. discloses a battery pack comprising the partition member according to claim 1. [Figures 6-7]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al. WO2019107561 (see US 2020/0287256) as applied to claim 5 above in further view of Sato et al. JP2001351588
With respect to claim 6, Honda et al. does not disclose wherein the water absorbing resin contains polyvinyl alcohol
Sato et al. discloses a partition member 6 that separates objects 2 to be separated from each other [Figures 6-15], the partition member 6 comprising:
a porous sheet [0014-0030]; and
a water absorbing material provided at least either on a surface of the porous sheet or inside the porous sheet [0014-0030], wherein the water absorbing materials contains a water absorbing resin
wherein the water absorbing resin contains polyvinyl alcohol. [0014-0020]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the partition member of Honda et al. to disclose wherein the water absorbing resin contains polyvinyl alcohol, as disclosed in Sato et al., in order to prevent cell damage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0319223)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights