DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, 13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 7 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 11 recites the limitation "encapsulation layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the ‘encapsulation layer’ is not recited until claim 3. For the purpose of evaluating the prior art, the Examiner has interpreted that these claims depend from claim 3, not claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(g)(1) During the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by IDS reference WO 2021/110179 A1 (reference D1 in the European Written Opinion submitted on May 9, 2025).
The Examiner notes that the following is a substantial duplicate of the rejection as set forth in the EPO Written Opinion.
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘179 A1 (D1) discloses (see figures 33-35): A battery (see element 300), comprising: - a battery cell (element 10a) comprising a battery cell body (element 11) and a tab (element 12a) extending from the battery cell body 11; - a case located at a periphery of the battery cell 10a and formed with a top sealing edge (element 1133), a side sealing edge (element 35) and at least one protruding portion (e.g. elements 1131, 1132) at edges of the battery cell body 11, wherein the top sealing edge 1133 is bent towards a top end face (element 1121), and the top end face 1121 is an end face in a height direction of the battery cell body 11, and the protruding portion 1131, 1132 is located between the top sealing edge 1133 and the side sealing edge 35 and extends towards the top end face 1121; and - a protection board (element 14) located on a side of the top sealing edge 1133 facing away from the top end face 1121, and comprising a first region (e.g. element 141) and a second region (e.g. element 142), wherein a height of the second region 142 is greater than that of the first region 141; and the second region 142 is connected with the tab 12a, and the second region 142 is disposed in a staggered manner with the protruding portion 1131, 1132 in a width direction of the battery cell body 11, wherein the first region 141 is disposed opposite to the protruding portion 1131, 1132.
Regarding claim 2, the additional feature of claim 2 is anticipated by D1 (see figures) as D1 discloses overlapping regions between the first region of the protection board and the protruding region when viewed along the direction orthogonal to the protection board.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the additional features of claims 7 and 10 are anticipated by D1 (see figures) as D1 discloses two protruding portions located at both ends of the top end face in the width direction; and the second region of the protection board is located between the two protruding portions.
Regarding claim 11, the additional feature of claim 11 is anticipated by D1 (see figures) as D1 discloses that a projection orthogonally the top end face of the protection board 14 and of the tab 12a onto the plan of the top end face, is located within the top end face.
Regarding claim 12, the additional feature of claim 12 is anticipated by D1 (see figures) as D1 discloses rectangular pouch cells wherein the top sealing edge is bent towards one of the cell surface along its thickness.
Regarding claim 13, D1 discloses the claimed first and second protruding portions 1131/1132 and second region 142 located therebetween:
PNG
media_image1.png
670
1282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the additional features of claims 14 and 15 are merely one of several straightforward possibilities which the skilled person would select, depending on the circumstances, without exercising inventive skill, in order to control the temperature of the battery (see for example [0167] of D1).
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 – 7, 10 – 12, 14 – 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO ‘179 A1 (D1) as applied above, as evidenced by Iwaizono et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,893,753 B2).
D1 is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, and 10 – 15, D1 is deemed to anticipate the claimed structure as recited above per the EPO Written Opinion. However, should it be shown or argued that D1 fails to necessarily require the structural aspects of the claimed ‘first region’ and ‘second region’ (i.e. different relative heights and ‘staggered manner’ limitations), the Examiner notes that the exact structural layout of a printed circuit board (PCB); i.e. the ‘protection board’ is routine to a skilled artisan and the various means for connection, layout of the circuit components, etc. are subject to the available space inside the battery cell (already cramped with the battery electrodes, separator, current collectors, etc.), and can take many varied layouts, as evidenced by Iwaizono et al. (
PNG
media_image2.png
1524
1722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, Figures, etc.). As such, the Examiner deems that having different height regions or ‘staggered’ patterns within the ‘protective board’ structure would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in trying to ensure adequate fit and capabilities within the limited space of a battery. Absent any evidence of unexpected results or non-obvious behavior, the Examiner deems that these structural modifications are routine design choices clearly within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art working to ensure that the protection board fits within the allotted space and functions as intended.
Regarding claim 3, protective ‘encapsulating’ layers are replete in the arts to ensure proper insulation of components from adjoining metallic elements or unwanted contact with electrolyte solution. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been well versed in applying an ‘encapsulating layer’ meeting the claimed limitations as needed to ensure protection of the electronic components from shorting or contact with electrolyte solution.
Regarding claims 4 – 6, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the height of the first and/or second regions and length of the first and/or second regions through routine experimentation, especially given the position above regarding the desire to fit everything within the limited space of a battery cell. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, battery cells having first and second surfaces, as well as top sealing edges, are disclosed by D1 as set forth above. Regarding the claimed distances, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the claimed distance values through routine experimentation, especially given the position above regarding the desire to fit everything within the limited space of a battery cell. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, the exact location of the ‘second connection section’ would have been a matter of routine design choice depending on where it could fit within the specific arrangement of the battery. As such, the Examiner deems that these limitations are met by routine optimization of the structural arrangement of the components in the battery cell with no significant impact on the functioning of the battery cell and/or protection board.
Regarding claim 19, using adhesives (i.e. ‘third insulation layer’) to securely fasten a PCB to the battery cell body would have been within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art inorder to ensure that the protective board (PCB) does not shift around during use and become damaged.
Regarding claim 20, temperature sensors within batteries are old in the art, as is optimization of the exact location of the thermocouple/thermistor to monitor the temperature. A skilled artisan would be well versed in this routine design choice depending on where the temperature sensor could be securely located, as well as ensuring that it is located near the end face region where heat is likely to accumulate. I.e. a skilled artisan would readily envision the claimed structural limitations as merely routine optimization of the thermocouple/thermistor placement and the use of such thermocouples/thermistors in battery cells is old in the art (see, for example, evidentiary art to Iwaizono et al.; col. 3, lines 38 – 48).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 8, 9 and 18 recite specific structural components, as well as how these structural components are connected to other components, that are deemed neither met nor obvious to a skilled artisan absent impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
September 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights