DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the September 10th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on September 10th, 2026:
Claims 1-4 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on September 10th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1-4 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Honda does not disclose the insulating member positioned between the pair of electrode plates is not persuasive.
Claim 1, line 9 recites the limitation “an insulating member positioned between the pair of electrode plates.” This limitation is very broad as the term between has many different definitions and interpretations. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize that the electrode plates would comprise their corresponding current collectors (corresponding to part numbers 212 and 220 of Honda). Further, the PHOSITA would recognize that the current collectors included in the electrode plates of Honda abut the electrically insulating member 2010, and that the electrically insulating member 2010 runs along the side of the batteries, contacting the current collectors 212/220 of the electrode plates, and occupying a space that is created between the planes defined by the electrode plates.
See MPEP 2111 wherein it states that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consisting with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F. 3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 [70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Applicant can overcome the art of Honda by amending the limitation in line 9 of Claim 1 to further specify the term “between.” Examples of amendments that would overcome the prior art in conjunction with Applicant’s argument include (with emphasis), “an insulating member positioned directly between the pair of electrode plates” or “an insulating member positioned between the pair of electrode plates in a longitudinal direction.”
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Prior Art
Previously cited Honda US PG Publication 2019/0363317 (“Honda”)
Previously cited Negishi US PG Publication 2016/0336554 (“Negishi”)
Previously cited Otake US PG Publication 2015/0221902 (“Otake”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda US PG Publication 2019/0363317 in view of Negishi US PG Publication 2016/0336554, as evidenced by Otake US PG Publication 2015/0221902.
Regarding Claim 1, Honda discloses a battery (which reads on the instantly claimed power storage module) (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a pair of electrode plates comprising an electrode layer 110 and a counter electrode layer 120 (Fig. 13, [0059]);
a seal 314 (sealing member) provided between the pair of electrode plates 110/120-122 to form a space together with the pair of electrode plates (as defined by the area within the unit cell) ([0105]-[0107]);
a battery element including a positive electrode active material layer provided on a surface of one of the pair of electrode plates (i.e. counter electrode layer 120-122) in the space ([0065], [0109]-[0112]), a negative electrode active material layer provided on a surface of the other of the pair of electrode plates (i.e. electrode layer 110) in the space ([0061]), and an electrolyte ([0069]); and
an [electrically] insulating member 2010 positioned between the pair of electrode plates 110/120-122, the insulating member 2010 being provided on a side opposite to the space when viewed from the sealing member 314 (Fig. 13, [0154]).
While Honda discloses that the insulating member 2010 and sealing member 314 are resins ([0130]), Honda fails to explicitly disclose wherein a melting point of the insulating member is lower than a melting point of the sealing member1.
However, Negishi discloses a battery comprising an electrode body, a seal, and an insulating member (Abstract, [0108], [0123], [0215]-[0220], entire disclosure dependent upon). Negishi teaches the use of a thermoplastic resin such as polyethylene (PE) for the insulating member ([0107]-[0108], [0216]) and a thermoplastic resin such as polypropylene (PP) for the seal member ([0217]-[0220]) in order to achieve electrical insulation between the seal and the electrode ([0215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the power storage module of Honda such that the sealing member is made of polypropylene (PP) and the insulating member is made of polyethylene (PE) in order to achieve electrical insulation between the sealing member and the electrode, as taught by Negishi.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Honda in view of Negishi discloses wherein a melting point of the insulating member 2010 consisting of polyethylene (PE) (130oC) is lower than a melting point of the sealing member 314 consisting of polypropylene (PP) (170oC), as evidenced by Otake ([0038]).
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 13 of Honda
Regarding Claim 2, Honda in view of Negishi teaches the instantly claimed power storage module according to Claim 1.
While Honda discloses that it is best to separate current collectors corresponding to the electrode layer 110 and the counter electrode layer 120-122, respectively, Honda fails to explicitly disclose a separator.
However, Negishi discloses a separator sandwiched between the positive electrode material layer and the negative electrode material layer opposed to each other and made of a resin material such as polypropylene in order to improve the safety of the battery ([0048]-[0049], [0083]-[0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the power storage module of Honda in view of Negishi such that the battery element further includes a separator positioned between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer and consisting of polypropylene, in order to improve the safety of the battery, as taught by Negishi.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Honda in view of Negishi discloses wherein the melting point of the insulating member 2010 consisting of polyethylene (PE) (130oC) is lower than a melting point of the separator consisting of polypropylene (PP) (170oC), as evidenced by Otake ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 3, Honda in view of Negishi discloses the instantly claimed power storage module according to Claim 1.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Honda in view of Negishi discloses wherein the melting point of the insulating member 2010 consisting of polyethylene (PE) (130oC) is higher than 60oC, as evidenced by Otake ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 4, Honda in view of Negishi discloses the instantly claimed power storage module according to Claim 1, and Honda discloses wherein the power storage module comprises three or more electrode plates including the pair of electrode plates 110/120-122, the three or more electrode plates being aligned in one direction, wherein
each of the sealing member 314, the battery element, and the insulating member 2010 is provided between the electrode plates that are adjacent to each other, of the three or more electrode plates (Fig. 13, [0150]-[0155]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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 on (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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights