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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/5/2024, 12/1/2025, 5/6/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being 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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “a battery cell including an electrode body including a plurality of layered structures layered one on another, each including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode…”. It is unclear it each electrode must include multiple layered structures and each layered structure must include a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator or if each electrode body must include a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator. For example, it is unclear if claim 1 requires a battery cell with multiple positive electrodes, negative electrodes, and separators or if the battery cell contains a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator and these constitute a plurality of layers. For examination purposes Examiner is considering that each electrode body must include a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator.
Claims 2-6 are rejected at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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) 1-2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebisaki et al. (JP 2021093334 A). Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation. Cited on the IDS filed 12/1/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Ebisaki discloses a battery module, comprising: a battery cell including an electrode body including a plurality of layered structures layered one on another, each including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and a battery cell case that hermetically ([0011]; [0017]; “airtightly”; Fig. 1) encloses the electrode body inside the battery cell case ([0008]-[0009]; [0011]; [0017]); and a heat dissipation member that is in contact with the battery cell case ([0015] “a battery stack housing, heat sink, etc., may be used as the deformation suppressing member 16”; Fig. 1 reproduced below), wherein the battery cell case includes at least a metal layer and a fusion resin layer disposed on an inner face side of the metal layer ([0011]; [0016]) and includes, at at least part of an outer face of the battery cell case, an exposed portion at which the metal layer is exposed, and the heat dissipation member is in contact with the exposed portion ([0011]; [0033]; [0013]; [0015] a battery stack housing, heat sink, etc., may be used as the deformation suppressing member 16; element 16 abuts element 5a which is metal foil).
PNG
media_image1.png
747
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ebisaki discloses the battery module of claim 1. Ebisaki further discloses wherein an electrode face of the electrode body has a rectangular shape, and the exposed portion is disposed at an end portion on a long side of the rectangular shape (Fig. 1 annotated below; [0011]; [0004]).
PNG
media_image2.png
747
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ebisaki discloses the battery module of claim 1. Ebisaki further teaches wherein the battery module includes, as the heat dissipation member, at least one of a battery module case or a condenser, and the at least one of the battery module case or the condenser is in contact with the exposed portion ([0015] “a battery stack housing, heat sink, etc., may be used as the deformation suppressing member”).
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisaki et al. (JP 2021093334 A) in view of Kuboki et al. (US 20190221902 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ebisaki teaches the battery module of claim 1.
Ebisaki is silent with respect to the battery cell case having the exposed portion on an outer face of a region E at which an inner face of the battery cell case is in contact with the electrode body, and the heat dissipation member is in contact with the exposed portion in the region E.
However, Kuboki teaches a battery module, comprising: a battery cell including an electrode body, and a battery cell case that encloses the electrode body inside the battery cell case ([0028]-[0028]); and a cooling plate, heat transfer plate, and side heat dissipation member that are in contact with the battery cell case ([0025]; [0040]-[0045]; [0031]; elements 20, 30 and 40 are heat dissipation members; Fig. 3 annotated below). Kuboki teaches that dissipating heat via cooling member and heat transfer plates allows for simplification of a battery case by not having coolant charged into the overall housing and still maintaining adequate cooling ([0046]-[0049]).
PNG
media_image3.png
448
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ebisaki to include a cooling plate and heat transfer plate located in a region E at which an inner face of the battery cell case is in contact with the electrode body, as taught by Kuboki.
One of ordinary would be motivated to modify Ebisaki to include a cooling plate and heat transfer plate located in a region E at which an inner face of the battery cell case is in contact with the electrode body, as taught by Kuboki allows for simplification of a battery case by not having coolant charged into the overall housing ([0046]-[0049]). Further locating a heat dissipation member between stacked battery cells (corresponding to a region E at which an inner face of the battery cell case is in contact with the electrode body) is a known configuration in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisaki et al. (JP 2021093334 A) in view of Yoon et al. (US20110008665A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ebisaki discloses the battery module of claim 1. Ebisake teaches wherein the battery cell case includes a first sheet having the exposed portion ([0011]; Fig. 1 see above). Ebisaki teaches that a heat sink is connected to an exposed metal portion of the battery cell case ([0015]; Fig. 1 see above).
Ebisaki does not teach a second sheet not having the exposed portion, and an average thickness of the metal layer in the first sheet is greater than an average thickness of the metal layer in the second sheet.
However, Yoon teaches a pouch type battery with a laminate case ([0024]) and a heat dissipation member in contact with the battery cell case (Fig. 4; [0035]-[0036]; [0059]). Yoon teaches that the laminate case is composed of a resin layer and a metal layer ([0024]). Yoon teaches that the metal layer should have a predetermined thickness sufficient to accelerate the dissipation of heat from the battery cell and specifically teaches that the metal layer is thicker than a conventional battery cell ([0024]-[0028]; [0054]). Yoon further teaches that additional resin layers reduce heat dissipation ([0054]; [0024]-[0026]).
In view of the teachings of Yoon would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module taught by Ebisaki such that a second sheet not directly contacting the heat dissipation member had an outer resin layer, and an average thickness of the metal layer in the first sheet, having the exposed portion, is greater than an average thickness of the metal layer in the second sheet.
In view of the teachings of Yoon one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the battery module taught by Ebisaki such that a second sheet not directly contacting the heat dissipation member had an outer resin layer, and an average thickness of the metal layer in the first sheet, having the exposed portion, is greater than an average thickness of the metal layer in the second sheet to control heat dissipation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisaki et al. (JP 2021093334 A) in view of Ahn (US 20240072353 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ebisaki discloses the battery module of claim 1. Ebisake teaches wherein the battery module includes at least one of a battery module case or a condenser ([0015] battery stack housing).
Ebisaki does not teach a resin member that contacts and connects the battery cell case and at least one of the battery module case or the condenser, serving as the heat dissipation member, and the resin member is in contact with the exposed portion.
However, Ahn teaches a pouch battery with a laminate case ([0005]-[0006]) with a bent sealing portion ([0049]; Fig. 3) and an insulation coating layer bonded to an inner and outer surface of the bent portion ([0050]; Fig. 3 element 30; [0072]-[0074]). Ahn teaches that the insulation coating layer includes heat dissipating particles ([0052]; the insulation coating layer corresponds to a resin member). Ahn teaches that a pouch type battery experiences dielectric breakdown phenomenon due to exposure of a metal layer at the end of a laminated sheet that is a battery case ([0008]; [0011]).
PNG
media_image4.png
336
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery module taught by Ebisaki by including an insulation coating layer bonded to an inner and outer surface of the bent portion of the sealing portion as taught by Ahn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the battery module taught by Ebisaki by including an insulation coating layer bonded to an inner and outer surface of the bent portion of the sealing portion as taught by Ahn to improving the sealability of the heat-sealing portion, and reliably preventing the dielectric breakdown phenomenon ([0011]).
Including the insulation coating layer taught by Ahn in the battery module structure taught by Ebisaki would result in a resin member that contacts and connects the battery cell case and at least one of the battery module case or the condenser, serving as the heat dissipation member, and the resin member would be in contact with the exposed portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights