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 I, claims 1-4 and 6 in the reply filed on July 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 July 30, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 8, 2024, March 18, 2025, January 30, 2026, and June 11, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 and 6 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 claims 1-4 and 6, the preamble in claims 1-4 and lines 1-2 of claim 6 recite “a fire-spread prevention type cell unit,” however it is unclear what is meant by the word “type.” The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). It is recommended to remove the word “type” from the preamble.
Regarding claim 2, lines 2-4 of the claim recite that “the adhesion of an application surface to the battery cell is higher than the adhesion of an outer surface located on the opposite side from the application surface in the thickness direction of the fire-spread prevention sheet.” This is indefinite as the comparison between adhesions seems to require an additional surface on the side of the fire-spread prevention sheet opposite the battery cell. Paragraph [0016] of the instant specification defines adhesion as “a state allowing repeated application,” however claim 2 does not specify what is being applied to the outer surface of the fire-spread prevention sheet. Paragraph [0041] describes a battery including multiple battery cells with fire-spread prevention sheets sandwiched between adjacent cells, as shown in Figure 6 . Provided that claim 6 requires a plural arrangement of fire-spread prevention type cell units and using the disclosure in paragraph [0041], the claim is interpreted as requiring “the adhesion of an application surface to the battery cell is higher than the adhesion of an outer surface located on the opposite side from the application surface in the thickness direction of the fire-spread prevention sheet to an adjacent battery cell.” It is noted, however, that claim 1 requires only a single fire-spread prevention type cell unit, and not the plural arrangement required in claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Naotake, et al. (WO2018207607 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 6, Naotake teaches a battery stack (2) with separators (12; fire-spread prevention sheet) sandwiched between the stacked secondary battery cells (1) (in an arrangement direction of the battery cell) (¶ [0025], Ln. 1-2, 5-7; Fig. 2). The separator includes a plurality of holes, effectively preventing the spread of fire (¶ [0007], Ln. 1-8). Shown in the cross-sectional view of the separator in Figure 4A, the separator may have a plurality of elongated holes (12a; pores having an elongated shape with a lengthwise direction oriented in a thickness direction of the fire-spread prevention sheet), forming a porous sponge sheet.
Regarding claim 3, Naotake teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the separator is made from a rigid material having insulating properties with holes formed in the separator, effectively preventing the spread of fire (¶ [0025], Ln. 3-4). In providing examples, Naotake teaches the use of epoxy resin and silica (flame retardant material) (¶ [0046], Ln. 1-7).
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han (US 2016/0308186 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Han teaches a battery module including a plurality of battery cells (10) arranged in a forward or backward direction (¶ [0042], Ln. 1-3; Fig. 3). Han teaches multilayer insulation sheets (55; fire-spread prevention sheet) positioned with spacers and disposed between battery cells neighboring each other (applied to a side located in an arrangement direction of the battery cells) (¶ [0068], Ln. 1-4). Han teaches that the multilayer insulation sheets prevent sparks, fire, and explosion (¶ [0072], Ln. 1-3). The multilayer insulation sheets include insulation layers which form voids in the sheets (porous sponge sheet) (¶ [0085], Ln. 1-3). Shown in Figure 7, the connection pattern of the insulation layers may form voids having an elongated shape, wherein the lengthwise direction of the voids is oriented in thickness direction of the multilayer insulation sheets.
Regarding claims 4, Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the multilayer insulation sheets may be formed using silicone material (silicone rubber as a main material) (¶ [0084], Ln. 1-2).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naotake, et al. (WO2018207607 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Naotake teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that a nonslip coating may be applied to the surface of the separator to increase the battery module’s resistance to vibration and shock (¶ [0049], Ln. 1-4). Naotake does not expressly teach that the adhesion between the surface of the separator applied to the battery cell is higher than the adhesion between an outer surface of the separator located opposite the application surface in the thickness direction and an adjacent battery cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the nonslip coating to one surface of the separator based on the teachings of Naotake. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the nonslip coating allows the separator to adhere to the adjacent battery cell, and would find it obvious to apply the nonslip coating to one side of the separator such that each separator is fixed to an adjacent battery cell. Thus, each separator and adjacent battery cell would be adhered to each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the nonslip coating to one surface of the separator in order to increase the battery module’s resistance to vibration and impact. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying the nonslip coating to one surface of the separator allows for easy application of the coating and achieves the effect of fixing the separators to the battery cells in order to increase the module’s resistance to impact. In applying the nonskid coating to one surface of the separator, the surface of the separator with the nonskid coating would have a higher adhesion than the opposite surface of the separator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshida, et al. (US 2020/0144576 A1) teaches a battery stack (2) with separators (12; fire-spread prevention sheet) between the stacked secondary battery cells (1) (in an arrangement direction of the battery cell) (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-3; Fig. 2). The separator is made from an insulating material (¶ [0044], Ln. 1-4). Shown in the cross-sectional view of the separator in Figure 4A, the separator may have a plurality of elongated holes (12a; pores having an elongated shape with a lengthwise direction oriented in a thickness direction of the fire-spread prevention sheet), forming a porous sponge sheet. Yoshida further teaches that the separator may include fibers woven to form a mesh structure, wherein the fiber may be a resin-made fiber having high heat resistance such as flame-resistant vinylon fiber (flame retardant material (¶ [0045], Ln. 1-3, 29-32).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights