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 § 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 9-11 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.
Claim 9 recites “the battery assembly”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claims 10 and 11 are also rejected based on their dependence from claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2012104545A to Utaka (machine translation relied upon herein, both cited in Applicant’s 8/19/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7, Utaka teaches a battery cell assembly comprising
A battery cell 11 formed by stacking a plurality of unit cells 12a/12/S/13/13a including a cathode 12/12a, a separator S, and an anode 13/13a (Fig. 1, ¶0023-0026 of the translation)
A thermal insulating cover 30 configured to surround an outer perimeter of the battery cell 11 at least once (¶0031).
Per claims 3 and 4, the thermal insulating cover 30 is made of a heat-resistant, polyimide film (¶0037, 0061 of translation).
Per claim 6, the thermal insulating cover 30 is wound around the battery cell 11 to be in close contact with the battery cell (¶0031 of translation).
Per claim 7, the battery cell has a structure in which a plurality of unit cells in a form of cathode 12/12a/12-separator S-anode 13/13a/13-separator are stacked (Fig. 2, ¶0023 of translation).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Utaka teaches a method of manufacturing a battery cell assembly, the method comprising
Manufacturing a battery cell 11 by stacking a plurality of unit cells, the unit cells comprising a cathode 12/12a/12, a separator S, and an anode 13/13a/13 (Fig. 2, ¶0023 of translation)
Forming a thermal insulating cover 30 on a perimeter portion of the battery cell 11 to be wound around a perimeter of the battery cell at least once (¶0031, 0041, 0043).
Per claim 10, the thermal insulating cover 30 is a polyimide (PI) film (¶0037, 0061 of translation).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0276702 to Nakai. Supporting information regarding physical properties is provided by US 4,188,460 to Kang.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 8, Nakai teaches a battery cell assembly comprising
A battery cell formed by stacking a plurality of unit cells 20 including a cathode 23, a separator 25B, and an anode 24 (Figs. 6, 7, ¶0057, 0066, 0083, 0084)
A cover 251 configured to surround an outer perimeter of the battery cell at least once (¶0058).
The cover 251 is formed of polyethylene or polypropylene in an embodiment. Polyethylene and polypropylene are heat insulating, according to C2/L19-28 of Kang. Therefore the cover 251 is a thermally insulating cover. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
Per claim 3, the thermal insulating cover 251 is made of a heat-resistant film (¶0058, 0090).
Per claim 6, the thermal insulating cover 251 is wound around the battery cell to be in close contact with the battery cell (Fig. 6, MPEP §2125).
Per claim 8, the battery cell has a structure in which unit cells 20 in a form of anode 24-separator 25B-cathode 23-separator 25B-anode 24 are attached to a long separator 252 and then folded and stacked (Fig. 7, ¶0058).
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0136424 to Hermann (included in Applicant’s 7/3/2024 IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Hermann teaches a battery cell assembly comprising
A battery cell formed by stacking a plurality of unit cells including a cathode, a separator, and an anode (Figs. 5, 6, ¶0026; the text discusses forming a jellyroll pattern by winding a cathode sheet, separator, and anode sheet, each repeated layer of cathode/separator/anode reads on a unit cell)
A thermal insulating cover 501/601 configured to surround an outer perimeter of the battery cell at least once (¶0044-0046).
Per claim 3, the thermal insulating cover 501/601 is made of a heat resistant film (Ibid.).
Regarding claim 9, Hermann teaches a method of manufacturing a battery cell, the method comprising
Manufacturing a battery cell by stacking a plurality of unit cells, the unit cells comprising a cathode, a separator, and an anode (Figs. 5, 6, ¶0026; the text discusses forming a jellyroll pattern by winding a cathode sheet, separator, and anode sheet, each repeated layer of cathode/separator/anode reads on a unit cell)
Forming a thermal insulating cover 501/601 on a perimeter portion of the battery cell to be wound around a perimeter of the battery cell at least once (¶0044-0046).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utaka as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Utaka teaches the limitations of claim 1. Utaka teaches that a thickness of the thermal insulating cover 30 is 10 μm or more and 200 μm or less (¶0038 of translation). 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utaka as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 5, Utaka teaches the limitations of claim 4. Utaka teaches that a thickness of the thermal insulating cover 30 that is a PI film is 10 μm or more and 200 μm or less (¶0038 of translation). 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2003/0138693 to Suzuki.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 9. Hermann teaches that the thermal insulating cover 501/601 is a film of, inter alia, polyethylene or polypropylene (¶0046). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the thermal insulating cover as a polyimide (PI) film because Suzuki teaches that polyimide is a suitable thermally insulating material to polyethylene or polypropylene (¶0049). 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, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In an embodiment, Hermann teaches that the thermally insulating cover 601 occurs twice in a stack of layers (Fig. 6, ¶0048). Elsewhere, Hermann teaches that a thickness of a single incidence of a layer can be achieved by forming multiple adjacent layers of that material (¶0040, 0041, 0053). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine a thickness of the thermal insulating cover of modified-Hermann by the number of times the PI film is wound. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights