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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 3 and 4 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 5-13 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210036269 A1, “Lee”) in view of Funahashi et al. (US 20080299451 A1, “Funahashi”) and in further view of Nagai et al. (JP 2012190734 A, “Nagai”), the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery module comprising: a battery case (see abstract “battery module (20)”); and a plurality of laminate batteries being stored in the battery case (see [0004] “an electrode assembly is accommodated in a case”; see [0047] “electrode assembly 10 may be a stack type, a jelly roll type, a stacked and folding type, or the like”), wherein each of the plurality of laminate batteries includes an electrode assembly (see [0019] “a battery module including the pouch type secondary battery as a unit cell” & see [0052] “battery case 13 accommodates the electrode assembly 10”), a container configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (see FIG. 1 describes “13 battery case”; see [0052] “battery case 13 accommodates the electrode assembly 10”), and a seal portion configured to seal a periphery of the container (see abstract describes “sealing part” & “housing”), the container includes an exhaust part, and a body (see FIG. 2 “venting device 15” & in [0046] describes “pouch type”), in each of the plurality of laminate batteries, the seal portion is formed by joining sheets to each other (see abstract “sealing part so as to be sealed together”). Lee does not explicitly disclose laminate sheets, nor an entirety of the exhaust part is housed in the each of the plurality of laminate batteries, nor and the battery case is filled with a mold resin with a distal end of the exhaust part left exposed.
Funahashi teaches laminate sheets (see abstract, see FIG. 8, see [0046] describes sealing member, see [0050] “that region can be sealed more reliably and easily, and reliability and workability can be improved correspondingly”; see [0080] “sealing members 16a and 16b” & “two strip-shaped aluminum laminate sheets”).
Lee and Funahashi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery module (see Funahashi title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate laminate sheets, as suggested by Funahashi (see FIG. 8, [0046], [0050], and [0080]) into the battery module of Lee because doing so improves the sealing reliability and workability, as suggested by Funahashi (see [0050]).
Regarding the limitation an entirety of the exhaust part is housed in the each of the plurality of laminate batteries, Lee does not explicitly disclose.
Funahashi teaches an exhaust part housed in the laminate batteries (see [0054] “the sealing portion at which the sealing members are melt-bonded to each other functions as a safety valve” & describes “the parts count of the battery module is reduced, and thereby the battery module is made lighter in weight and lower in cost”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sealing portion functions as a safety valve, as suggested by Funahashi (see [0054]) into the battery module of Lee because doing so reduces the cost, as suggested by Funahashi (see [0054]).
Lee discloses “polyolefin-based resin such as polypropylene” which describes a resin (see [0059]), but Lee does not explicitly disclose and the battery case is filled with a mold resin with a distal end of the exhaust part left exposed.
Nagai teaches mold resin (see [0013] “a space between the nonaqueous electrolyte battery and the exterior body is filled with a mold resin to form a resin fixing portion, and the resin fixing portion has a resin lacking portion in at least a part in contact with the sealing portion. In addition, the exterior body includes an exhaust hole that allows the resin lacking portion and the outside to communicate with each other”; see [0014] “since the nonaqueous electrolyte battery module of the present invention has the resin lacking portion, even when an abnormality occurs in the nonaqueous electrolyte battery and the internal pressure increases, the sealing portion of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery in the vicinity of the resin lacking portion is opened, and the gas or the like inside the battery can be released”).
Lee and Nagai are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery module (see Nagai title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mold resin & an exposed part, as suggested by Nagai (see [0013]) into the battery module of Lee because doing so allows for “the sealing portion of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery in the vicinity of the resin lacking portion is opened, and the gas or the like inside the battery can be released”), as suggested by Nagai (see [0014]).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 1, “the seal portion is formed by joining laminate sheets to each other”, “the battery case is filled with a mold resin with a distal end of the exhaust part left exposed”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a 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). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the battery module of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the body is buried in the mold resin (see FIG. 3 “1353” & see [0059] describes “inside of the battery case 13 is completely sealed to prevent materials from moving between the inside and outside of the battery case”).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 7, Lee discloses the battery module of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the distal end of the exhaust part and an upper surface of the mold resin filled into the battery case is from 1 mm to 10 mm nor wherein a distance between the distal end of the exhaust part and an upper end of the each of the plurality of laminate batteries is from 1 mm to 10 mm.
Funahashi teaches a height of 4 mm (see [0082]) which lies within the claimed range.
Funahashi teaches a range of 4 mm (see [0082]), which lies within the claimed range of 1 mm to 10 mm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses a battery module comprising: a battery case; and a plurality of laminate batteries being stored in the battery case (see abstract “battery module”; see FIG. 1 describes “13 battery case”; see [0047] “electrode assembly 10 may be a stack type, a jelly roll type, a stacked and folding type, or the like”), wherein each of the plurality of laminate batteries includes a plurality of containers each configured to accommodate an electrode assembly (see [0052] “battery case 13 accommodates the electrode assembly 10”; see [0047] “a stacked” which reads on multiple batteries & see [0004] “in the can type secondary battery, an electrode assembly is accommodated in a case made of a metal or plastic material”), and a seal portion configured to seal a periphery of each of the plurality of containers, each of the plurality of containers includes an exhaust part, and a body, in each of the plurality of laminate batteries, the seal portion is formed by joining laminate sheets to each other (see [0046] “sealing is performed”; see [0053] “sealing part 134 formed on an edge may be sealed” & “venting device 15”).
Regarding the limitation an entirety of the exhaust part is housed in the each of the plurality of laminate batteries, Lee does not explicitly disclose.
Funahashi teaches an exhaust part housed in the laminate batteries (see [0054] “the sealing portion at which the sealing members are melt-bonded to each other functions as a safety valve” & describes “the parts count of the battery module is reduced, and thereby the battery module is made lighter in weight and lower in cost”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sealing portion functions as a safety valve, as suggested by Funahashi (see [0054]) into the battery module of Lee because doing so reduces the cost, as suggested by Funahashi (see [0054]).
Lee discloses “polyolefin-based resin such as polypropylene” which describes a resin (see [0059]), but Lee does not explicitly disclose and the battery case is filled with a mold resin with a distal end of the exhaust part left exposed.
Nagai teaches mold resin (see [0013] “a space between the nonaqueous electrolyte battery and the exterior body is filled with a mold resin to form a resin fixing portion, and the resin fixing portion has a resin lacking portion in at least a part in contact with the sealing portion. In addition, the exterior body includes an exhaust hole that allows the resin lacking portion and the outside to communicate with each other”; see [0014] “since the nonaqueous electrolyte battery module of the present invention has the resin lacking portion, even when an abnormality occurs in the nonaqueous electrolyte battery and the internal pressure increases, the sealing portion of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery in the vicinity of the resin lacking portion is opened, and the gas or the like inside the battery can be released”).
Lee and Nagai are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery module (see Nagai title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mold resin & an exposed part, as suggested by Nagai (see [0013]) into the battery module of Lee because doing so allows for “the sealing portion of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery in the vicinity of the resin lacking portion is opened, and the gas or the like inside the battery can be released”), as suggested by Nagai (see [0014]).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 8, “the seal portion is formed by joining laminate sheets to each other”, “the battery case is filled with a mold resin with a distal end of the exhaust part left exposed”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a 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). See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 5, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210036269 A1, “Lee”) in view of Funahashi et al. (US 20080299451 A1, “Funahashi”) and in further view of Nagai et al. (JP 2012190734 A, “Nagai”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kusaba et al. (JP 2016072040 A, “Kusaba”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 5, and claim 11, Lee discloses the battery module of claim 1 and claim 8, and further discloses wherein the seal portion of each of the plurality of laminate batteries on a line extending from the distal end of the exhaust part is openable for formation of an exhaust path for a gas to be discharged from the electrode assembly (see [0047], [0046], [0059], FIG. 2, [0080], [0062] “venting device 15”, [0070] & see FIG. 4 “15” & “1533 gas exhaust hole”). Lee does not explicitly disclose and the exhaust path is disposed between an inner surface of the battery case and an upper surface of the mold resin filled into the battery case.
Kusaba teaches resin on the upper surface (see FIG. 2 describes top has resin & describes “35” & see [0058] “seal portion 35 is made of TPC (thermoplastic elastic resin)”; see [0039] describes “lower surface seal portion 38” & “to prevent the exhaust gas discharged from the battery 4 from leaking to the battery accommodation chamber 21”).
Lee and Kusaba are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely suppressing gas exhaust discharged from a battery (see Kusaba [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate resin on the upper surface, as suggested by Kusaba (see FIG. 2 & [0058]) into the battery module of Lee because doing so “prevent[s] the exhaust gas discharged from the battery 4 from leaking to the battery accommodation chamber 21”, as suggested by Kusaba (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the battery module of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the body is buried in the mold resin (see FIG. 3 “1353” & see [0059] describes “inside of the battery case 13 is completely sealed to prevent materials from moving between the inside and outside of the battery case”).
Regarding claim 12 and claim 13, Lee discloses the battery module of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the distal end of the exhaust part and an upper surface of the mold resin filled into the battery case is from 1 mm to 10 mm nor wherein a distance between the distal end of the exhaust part and an upper end of the each of the plurality of laminate batteries is from 1 mm to 10 mm.
Funahashi teaches a height of 4 mm (see [0082]) which lies within the claimed range.
Funahashi teaches a range of 4 mm (see [0082]), which lies within the claimed range of 1 mm to 10 mm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210036269 A1, “Lee”) in view of Funahashi et al. (US 20080299451 A1, “Funahashi”) and in further view of Nagai et al. (JP 2012190734 A, “Nagai”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20180138476 A1, “Yamazaki”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the battery module of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the exhaust part of each of the plurality of containers protrudes beyond the body in an axial direction of the electrode assembly from one side of the electrode assembly of the body.
Yamazaki teaches exhaust cover 20 & exhaust space 28 in FIG. 2. Yamazaki teaches “gas emitted from the unit batteries 12 flows in the exhaust space 28” (see [0041].
Lee and Yamazaki are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery module (see Yamazaki title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the exhaust cover and exhaust space as suggested by Yamazaki (see FIG. 2 “20” & “28”) into the battery module of Lee because doing so allows for the “gas emitted from the unit batteries” to flow into the exhaust space, as suggested by Yamazaki (see [0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P7 par 1 “none of the cited references disclose or suggest that in each of the plurality of laminate batteries, the seal portion is formed by joining laminate sheets to each other, and an entirety of the exhaust part is housed in the each of the plurality of laminate batteries”, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee et al. (US 20210036269 A1, “Lee”) in view of Funahashi et al. (US 20080299451 A1, “Funahashi”) and in further view of Nagai et al. (JP 2012190734 A, “Nagai”).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 08/20/2026
Prosecution Insights