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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on August 20th, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 20th, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11, and 13 are 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “the second member being more likely to be deformed than the first member. However, the scope of the claim is confusing given that it is not clear what is meant by “more likely” and when/why the second member would be “more likely” to be deformed as compared to the first member.
Regarding claims 3-4, 7-8, 11, and 13:
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11, and 13 each recite “outer size”. However, the scope of the claims is confusing given that it is not clear what is meant by “outer size” or what size is encompassed by this phrase, i.e., length, width, thickness, etc.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11, and 13 each recite “substantially equal”. However, the scope of the claims is confusing given that is it is not clear what is meant by “substantially equal” or how close the outer sizes have to be in order to be considered “substantially equal”.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (WO 2020054228 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Yoshida et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
458
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
313
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoshida et al. teaches in Fig. 1, a power supply device 100, i.e. a battery assembly, comprising a plurality of battery cells 1 arranged in a first direction, and a plurality of separators 2 positioned between adjacent battery cells 1 in the first direction, and a restraining member 3 that aggregates the plurality of battery cells 1 and the plurality of separators 2 (0012).
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Fig. 9, the separator 2F is provided with a first member including multiple grooves 25F, i.e. a plurality of protrusions, each protruding from a clamping plate portion 22F, i.e. base portion, in the first direction (0039-0040).
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Fig. 9, a heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves 25F (0040). Given that Yoshida et al. describes the second member as heat insulating while the first member is not described as heat insulating, it is clear that the second member would be more heat insulating than the first member, i.e. the second member would have a higher heat insulation property than a heat insulation property of the first member.
With this configuration, the walls of the grooves forming the heat insulating member housing portion 27F come into contact with the battery cell 1, thereby suppressing the expansion of the battery cell 1. This suppresses the compressive deformation of the heat insulating member 24F and prevents a decrease in heat insulating performance (0041), i.e. the heat insulating member is more likely to be deformed than the first member.
In light of the overlap between the claimed battery assembly and that disclosed by Yoshida et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a battery assembly that is both disclosed by Yoshida et al. and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Fig. 9 above, a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly and a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves is larger than a thickness of the second member.
Further, given that Yoshida et al. discloses that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves, 25F (Fig. 9, 0040), it is clear that in a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly, a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves must necessarily be larger than a thickness of the second member in order to accommodate the heat insulating member.
Regarding claim 3:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Given that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves 25F as seen in Fig. 9, it is clear that length of the first member and a length of the heat insulating member are substantially equal to each other.
Regarding claim 4:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Fig. 9 above, a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly and a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves is larger than a thickness of the second member.
Further, given that Yoshida et al. discloses that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves, 25F (Fig. 9, 0040), it is clear that in a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly, a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves must necessarily be larger than a thickness of the second member in order to accommodate the heat insulating member.
Given that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves 25F as seen in Fig. 9, it is clear that length of the first member and a length of the heat insulating member are substantially equal to each other.
Regarding claim 5:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Although Yoshida et al. does not disclose the base portion of the first member and the plurality of protrusions are integrally molded, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Yoshida et al. meets the requirements of the claimed battery assembly, Yoshida et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claims.
Regarding claim 6:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Fig. 9 above, a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly and a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves is larger than a thickness of the second member.
Further, given that Yoshida et al. discloses that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves, 25F (Fig. 9, 0040), it is clear that in a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly, a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves must necessarily be larger than a thickness of the second member in order to accommodate the heat insulating member.
Although Yoshida et al. does not disclose the base portion of the first member and the plurality of protrusions are integrally molded, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Yoshida et al. meets the requirements of the claimed battery assembly, Yoshida et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claims.
Regarding claim 7:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Given that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves 25F as seen in Fig. 9, it is clear that length of the first member and a length of the heat insulating member are substantially equal to each other.
Although Yoshida et al. does not disclose the base portion of the first member and the plurality of protrusions are integrally molded, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Yoshida et al. meets the requirements of the claimed battery assembly, Yoshida et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claims.
Regarding claim 8:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Fig. 9 above, a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly and a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves is larger than a thickness of the second member.
Further, given that Yoshida et al. discloses that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves, 25F (Fig. 9, 0040), it is clear that in a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly, a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves must necessarily be larger than a thickness of the second member in order to accommodate the heat insulating member.
Given that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves 25F as seen in Fig. 9, it is clear that length of the first member and a length of the heat insulating member are substantially equal to each other.
Although Yoshida et al. does not disclose the base portion of the first member and the plurality of protrusions are integrally molded, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Yoshida et al. meets the requirements of the claimed battery assembly, Yoshida et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claims.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (WO 2020054228 A1) in view of Baba et al. (US 20210296639 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
However, Yoshida et al. does not teach wherein the second member is composed of a foamed resin.
Baba et al. teaches examples of raw materials usable in an elastic body are thermoset elastomers such as polyurethane which may be foamed (0076), i.e. foamed resin. That is, the compressive elastic moduli hold the relationship “the negative electrode active material layer > the separator > the elastic body”. Thus, among the above-mentioned, the negative electrode active material layer is least easily deformable, while the elastic body is most readily deformable. Defining the compressive elastic moduli of the respective members as described above improves permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material layer and retainment therein, which in some cases prevents drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle (0077)
In light of the motivation for using foamed polyurethane disclosed by Baba et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use foamed resin in the heat insulating member of the power supply device of Yoshida et al. in order to improve permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material and retainment therein, and prevent drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle.
Regarding claim 10:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Fig. 9 above, a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly and a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves is larger than a thickness of the second member.
Further, given that Yoshida et al. discloses that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves, 25F (Fig. 9, 0040), it is clear that in a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly, a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves must necessarily be larger than a thickness of the second member in order to accommodate the heat insulating member.
However, Yoshida et al. does not teach wherein the second member is composed of a foamed resin.
Baba et al. teaches examples of raw materials usable in an elastic body are thermoset elastomers such as polyurethane which may be foamed (0076), i.e. foamed resin. That is, the compressive elastic moduli hold the relationship “the negative electrode active material layer > the separator > the elastic body”. Thus, among the above-mentioned, the negative electrode active material layer is least easily deformable, while the elastic body is most readily deformable. Defining the compressive elastic moduli of the respective members as described above improves permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material layer and retainment therein, which in some cases prevents drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle (0077)
In light of the motivation for using foamed polyurethane disclosed by Baba et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use foamed resin in the heat insulating member of the power supply device of Yoshida et al. in order to improve permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material and retainment therein, and prevent drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle.
Regarding claim 11:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Given that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves 25F as seen in Fig. 9, it is clear that length of the first member and a length of the heat insulating member are substantially equal to each other.
However, Yoshida et al. does not teach wherein the second member is composed of a foamed resin.
Baba et al. teaches examples of raw materials usable in an elastic body are thermoset elastomers such as polyurethane which may be foamed (0076), i.e. foamed resin. That is, the compressive elastic moduli hold the relationship “the negative electrode active material layer > the separator > the elastic body”. Thus, among the above-mentioned, the negative electrode active material layer is least easily deformable, while the elastic body is most readily deformable. Defining the compressive elastic moduli of the respective members as described above improves permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material layer and retainment therein, which in some cases prevents drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle (0077)
In light of the motivation for using foamed polyurethane disclosed by Baba et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use foamed resin in the heat insulating member of the power supply device of Yoshida et al. in order to improve permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material and retainment therein, and prevent drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle.
Regarding claim 12:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Although Yoshida et al. does not disclose the base portion of the first member and the plurality of protrusions are integrally molded, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Yoshida et al. meets the requirements of the claimed battery assembly, Yoshida et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claims.
However, Yoshida et al. does not teach wherein the second member is composed of a foamed resin.
Baba et al. teaches examples of raw materials usable in an elastic body are thermoset elastomers such as polyurethane which may be foamed (0076), i.e. foamed resin. That is, the compressive elastic moduli hold the relationship “the negative electrode active material layer > the separator > the elastic body”. Thus, among the above-mentioned, the negative electrode active material layer is least easily deformable, while the elastic body is most readily deformable. Defining the compressive elastic moduli of the respective members as described above improves permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material layer and retainment therein, which in some cases prevents drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle (0077)
In light of the motivation for using foamed polyurethane disclosed by Baba et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use foamed resin in the heat insulating member of the power supply device of Yoshida et al. in order to improve permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material and retainment therein, and prevent drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle.
Regarding claim 13:
Yoshida et al. teaches a power supply device as set forth above.
Yoshida et al. also teaches in Fig. 9 above, a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly and a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves is larger than a thickness of the second member.
Further, given that Yoshida et al. discloses that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves, 25F (Fig. 9, 0040), it is clear that in a state in which the separator is detached from the battery assembly, a protruding height of each of the plurality of grooves must necessarily be larger than a thickness of the second member in order to accommodate the heat insulating member.
Given that the heat insulating member 24F, i.e. second member, is placed in between the plurality of grooves 25F as seen in Fig. 9, it is clear that length of the first member and a length of the heat insulating member are substantially equal to each other.
Although Yoshida et al. does not disclose the base portion of the first member and the plurality of protrusions are integrally molded, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Yoshida et al. meets the requirements of the claimed battery assembly, Yoshida et al. clearly meet the requirements of the present claims.
However, Yoshida et al. does not teach wherein the second member is composed of a foamed resin.
Baba et al. teaches examples of raw materials usable in an elastic body are thermoset elastomers such as polyurethane which may be foamed (0076), i.e. foamed resin. That is, the compressive elastic moduli hold the relationship “the negative electrode active material layer > the separator > the elastic body”. Thus, among the above-mentioned, the negative electrode active material layer is least easily deformable, while the elastic body is most readily deformable. Defining the compressive elastic moduli of the respective members as described above improves permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material layer and retainment therein, which in some cases prevents drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle (0077)
In light of the motivation for using foamed polyurethane disclosed by Baba et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use foamed resin in the heat insulating member of the power supply device of Yoshida et al. in order to improve permeability of the electrolyte into the negative electrode active material and retainment therein, and prevent drop in output of a battery in a charge/discharge cycle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights