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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kristy et al. (WO 2022/155056 A1, hereinafter Kristy, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Kristy teaches a battery pack (Fig. 1-4) comprising:
a plurality of rectangular secondary batteries (items 300 & 400, para. 3 & 27) that are disposed along a predetermined arrangement direction; and
a spacer (item 100) that is disposed between the rectangular secondary batteries that are adjacent in the arrangement direction, wherein
the spacer includes a first part (item 10) and a second part (item 22) that are stacked in the arrangement direction,
the first part has an elastic modulus of 1 MPa or more and 10 MPa or less,
the second part includes a porous part (para. 21),
50 mass% or more of the entire porous part is occupied by a material that satisfies both the following conditions:
(1) a classification of heat resistance based on JIS K 6380 (2014) is E or more; and
(2) the elastic modulus is 0.02 MPa or more and 0.9 MPa or less, and the elastic modulus is a value obtained as an inclination of an approximation line in a range of a compression ratio from 1 to 20% from a compression load-compression ratio curve (horizontal axis: compression ratio, vertical axis: compression load) formed by performing compression until a compression load becomes 3.9 MPa in the arrangement direction at a compression speed of 12 kPa/min.
Kristy does not expressly disclose the properties of the first and second parts. However, since Kristy and the claimed battery pack employ substantially similar materials (EPDM for the first part – para. 34 & silicone for the second part – para. 37 & 42), it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (the elastic modulus and heat resistance) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Kristy. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Re Claim 2. Kristy teaches wherein silicone rubber occupies 100 mass% (para. 37 & 42).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
Re Claim 3. Kristy teaches wherein the elastic modulus of the material forming the porous part is 0.02 MPa or more and 0.2 MPa or less (inherent property of silicone, para. 37).
Re Claims 4 and 5. Kristy teaches wherein the porous part has a porosity of 99 vol% (para. 38).
Re Claim 6. Kristy teaches wherein an area of a surface of the first part that is orthogonal to the arrangement direction is equal to an area of a surface of the second part that is orthogonal to the arrangement direction (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 7. Kristy teaches wherein a part of the first part is disposed in the second part (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 8. Kristy teaches wherein the first part and the second part are integrated by a binding member (para. 25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights