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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites, “a plurality of pressure pads, each pressure pad having at least one surface in contact with an respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells” (emphasis added). This limitation appears to contain a grammatical error as well as a typographical error. The limitation “an respective adjacent battery cell” should read “a respective adjacent battery cell” to correct a grammatical error. The limitation “the plurality of battery cells” contains a typographical error based on the previously presented limitation from the previous claim set, and should read “a plurality of battery cells” since there is no antecedent basis for “the plurality of battery cells”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pressure adjusting unit” in Claims 1 and 10 and “temperature adjusting unit” in Claims 6 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-7, 9-12, 14-15 and 17 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 limitations “pressure adjusting unit” in Claims 1 and 10 and “temperature adjusting unit” in Claims 6 and 12 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation, above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In regards to a “pressure adjusting unit”, the instant specification discloses that the pressure adjusting unit adjusts the volume of the pressure pad [0012, 0035], and that adjusting the volume includes using the pressure adjusting unit 400 to adjust an amount of a fluid accommodated in the accommodating space of the pressure pad [0013, 0035]. The instant specification further discloses that the pressure inside the pressure pad may be adjusted using “various methods” [0035]. However, "‘[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure’ in the context of a means plus function limitation”. See MPEP 2181, II, A. Therefore, although the instant specification supports that the “pressure adjusting unit” is capable of adjusting the amount of fluid within the pressure pads, thereby adjusting the pressure applied to the battery cells, the instant specification is devoid of any structure that performs the claimed function of adjusting pressure.
In regards to a “temperature adjusting unit”, the instant specification discloses that the temperature adjusting unit adjusts a temperature of fluid moving to the pressure pad 300 [0017, 0040]. Although the instant specification indicates that the temperature adjusting unit may be connected to a cooling device (not illustrated), a heater (not illustrated), and a battery cell temperature control unit (not illustrated) for adjusting the temperature of the battery cells [0040-0041], such a disclosure does not positively recite the structure of the temperature adjusting unit in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure will perform the recited function. For example, it is not clear whether the cooling device, heater, and/or battery cell temperature control unit constitute a portion of the temperature adjusting unit, or whether these structures are merely connected to the temperature adjusting unit.
Therefore, the Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 14-15 and 17 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As laid out above, it appears the terms “pressure adjusting unit” and “temperature adjusting unit” should be interpreted under 112(f) and therefore should be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Since the instant specification does not clearly describe the structure of the adjusting units, it appears that no prior art rejections should be applied since “an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation”. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). See also MPEP 2143.03 (I).
However, assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is persuasive in showing that the appropriate interpretation of the “pressure adjusting unit” and the “temperature adjusting unit” should not be under 112(f), but should instead be under broadest reasonable interpretation, then the following interpretations are applied. The limitation “pressure adjusting unit” will broadly and reasonably be interpreted as any structure or combination of structures which are capable of adjusting a pressure, and the limitation “temperature adjusting unit” will broadly and reasonably be interpreted as any structure or combination of structures which are capable of adjusting a temperature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann (US-20150295208-A1; previously cited) in view of Ng et al. (US-20050089750-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 10, Schumann discloses an active pressure adjusting device for a battery module comprising [0006-00010, 0033-0034, 0048, 0063-0067, 0072-0075]:
a plurality of pressure pads (gas bags 45 and 55, Fig. 6; [0073]), each pressure pad having at least one surface in contact with a respective adjacent battery cell of a plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 6; [0075]) and having a volume configured to be adjusted [0024, 0033-0034, 0075]; and
a pressure measuring unit (corresponds to the combination of pressure sensors 30 and pressure value computing device 40; [0063-0064, 0075]) for measuring a pressure applied to the plurality of pressure pads [0063-0064, 0075];
a pressure adjusting unit (corresponds to the combination of compressor control 42, battery management system 38, and compressor 32 [0064-0067, 0075]) for adjusting the volume of the plurality of pressure pads in response to information on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit [0063-0067, 0075]; and
wherein each pressure pad includes an accommodating space (cavity; [0073]) along one side of the at least one battery cell (see Fig. 6), and each accommodating space is individually adjustable for pressure [0033, 0075], wherein
the plurality of pressure pads are stacked with at least one surface of each pressure pad perpendicular to a stacking direction (stack direction S, Fig. 6; [0075]) of the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 6), and applies pressure to battery cells in the stacking direction [0006, 0010-0012, 0015, 0075], wherein
at least one of the plurality of pressure pads includes the at least one surface in contact with a surface of one battery cell of the plurality of battery cells in the stacking direction and another surface in contact with a surface of another battery cell of the plurality of battery cells in the stacking direction (see annotation of Schumann Fig. 6, below), and the plurality of battery cells are divided into two or more groups (59-1 and 59-2, Fig. 6) along the stacking direction based on the at least one pressure pad.
PNG
media_image1.png
1257
1613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Schumann Fig. 6.
Schumann discloses that each pressure pad can be individually adjusted, and that the internal pressure of the first cell stack (59-1) and the second cell stack (59-2) may be equal, but also different [0075]. Therefore, it is understood that the prior art discloses a structure wherein the plurality of pressure pads are capable of respectively adjusting pressure to “each of the two or more groups”.
Although Schumann does not teach a specific example wherein “the plurality of pressure pads include pressure pads disposed on both sides of the plurality of battery cells based on the stacking direction”, Schumann discloses that additional pressure pads (gas bags) in any arbitrary number and position may be introduced [0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have positioned a pressure pad at the beginning of the cell stack (left side of the cell group 59-2 pictured in Fig. 6) with a reasonable expectation that the addition of another pressure pad in such a location would result in a successful active pressure adjusting device. Accordingly, Schumann renders obvious a configuration wherein “the plurality of pressure pads include pressure pads disposed on both sides of the plurality of battery cells based on the stacking direction”.
Schumann discloses that the pressure pads can have various forms (see Figs. 7A-7F; [0076-0084, 0090]). Schumann does not teach that “each pressure pad includes a branch unit for isolating a fluid inlet and fluid discharged to a fluid outlet from each other therein”.
Ng teaches a cooling bladder [0011-0012]. The cooling bladder corresponds to the pressure pad of Schumann since it is placed directly adjacent to a respective battery cell and is designed to contain a fluid (see Figs. 12A – 13A; [0047, 0087, 0096-0099]). The cooling bladder can have a single interior compartment, or the cooling bladder can have a parallel flow arrangement [0040, 0047, 0071, 0097-0098]. The Examiner notes that this establishes a bladder with a single interior as a substitutable equivalent to a bladder with a parallel flow interior (MPEP 2144.06, II). The parallel flow arrangement involves partitioning the cooling bladder such that fluid flows into the cooling bladder in one direction and exits in another direction (see Figs. 13A-13B; [0098-0099]). Advantageously, the parallel flow arrangement provides flow enhancement [0099].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided each of the pressure pads of Schumann to have a partition structure in order to achieve a parallel flow with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in an enhanced flow arrangement. Additionally, substituting equivalents known for the same purpose supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.06, II). The partition structure isolates a fluid inlet (see 31 in Ng Fig. 13A) from fluid discharged to a fluid outlet (see 33 in Ng Fig. 13A).
Regarding Claim 11, Schumann renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Schumann further discloses that the pressure measuring unit includes a surface pressure measuring sensor (pressure sensor 30; [0063, 0075]) for measuring a surface pressure of a battery cell [0062-0064].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumann (US-20150295208-A1; previously cited) in view of Ng et al. (US-20050089750-A1; previously cited) as applied to Claim 10 above, and in view of Wang et al. (US-20150270586-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 12, Schumann renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Schumann discloses that it is important to optimize the pressure applied to the battery cell stack as a function of state of charge of the energy storage element in order to improve service life and performance of the energy storage element. Although Schumann teaches that a fluid moves to the pressure pads [0024, 0027], Schumann does not teach a temperature adjusting unit for adjusting a temperature of the fluid moving to the pressure pads.
Wang teaches a similar active pressure adjusting device for a battery module [0022, 0024, 0034, 0036-0037, 0039-0040]. Wang teaches that a thermal fluid may be directed to a flexible bladder (reads on pressure pad) to place pressure on a battery cell array [0005, 0034, 0039]. Wang teaches that battery cells generate heat during charging and discharging, which can negatively impact the performance and life of a battery cell array if not removed [0029]. Advantageously, using a thermal fluid provides effective thermal management of a battery cell array [0028-0030, 0035]. The thermal fluid can be heated and/or cooled using a liquid thermal management system, an air thermal management system, or other methods as known in the art [0028]. An electronic monitoring system can manage the temperature and charge state of each of the battery cells, and may include a temperature sensor for providing data regarding the battery [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a thermal management system, an electronic monitoring system and a temperature sensor as taught by Wang to provide thermal management of the battery cells of Schumann. One ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such configuration would result in a successful active pressure adjusting device capable of removing heat, thereby improving the performance and life of the battery module. The electronic monitoring system and thermal management system corresponds to the recited limitation of “a temperature adjusting unit for adjusting a temperature of a fluid moving to the pressure pads”. The temperature sensor corresponds to the recited limitation of “a temperature measuring unit for measuring the temperature of any one or more of the battery cells”. Since the temperature measuring unit (temperature sensor) is in communication with the temperature adjusting unit (electronic monitoring system) to provide temperature data regarding the battery [Wang: 0024], the temperature measuring unit is capable of providing a “measured temperature to the temperature adjusting unit”.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinshagen et al. (US-20170279088-A1; previously cited) in view of Schumann (US-20150295208-A1; previously cited) and in further view of Ng et al. (US-20050089750-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Reinshagen discloses a secondary battery module [0034-0038] comprising:
a battery stack (multiplicity of battery cells 1001…1004) in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked [0044];
a case (pack frame; [0044]) in which the battery stack is accommodated [0044];
a plurality of pressure pads (clamping devices 300, Fig. 6; [0055-0056]), each pressure pad having at least one surface in contact with a respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 6) and having a volume configured to be adjusted [0045-0046, 0030, 0047].
Reinshagen discloses that the pressure of the pressure pads (clamping devices 300) can be dynamically controlled such that the pressure can be increased or reduced as necessary [0030, 0047]. Reinshagen does not explicitly teach a pressure adjusting unit.
Schumann teaches a similar battery module (energy storage device 600, Fig. 6; [0034, 0047-0048, 0072-0073]) including a plurality pressure pads (gas bags 45, 55; Fig, 6; [0073, 0075]) designed to apply a variable pressure to the adjacent battery cells [0074-0075, 0086-0088]. Schumann teaches that a control unit may control the respective internal pressures of the pressure pads (gas bags) [0075, 0088].
Therefore, although Reinshagen does not explicitly disclose a pressure adjusting unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a control unit (reads on pressure adjusting unit) as taught by Schumann with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery module capable of dynamically controlling the pressure of the pressure pads.
Reinshagen discloses that the pressure of the fill medium can be checked [0030, 0047], and that the pressure of the pressure pads (clamping devices 300) can be dynamically controlled based on the actual pressure of the pressure pads (clamping devices 300) [0030, 0047]. Therefore, although Reinshagen does not explicitly a pressure sensor, and therefore does not explicitly disclose “a measured pressure information”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided each pressure pad with a pressure sensor to measure the actual pressure of each of the pressure pads with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery module capable of dynamically controlling the pressure of the pressure pads.
The limitation “a pressure adjusting unit configured to adjust the volume according to a measured pressure information” is an intended use recitation. The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. By including a pressure sensor, Reinshagen thereby renders obvious a configuration which is capable of using the pressure adjusting unit (control unit) to adjust the volume of the pressure pads based on “a measured pressure information” (i.e. information provided by the pressure sensor), and therefore the limitation is met.
Reinshagen further discloses that:
each pressure pad includes at least one accommodating space (internal space 310; Figs. 7-15; [0057-0066]) configured to accommodate a fluid [0021, 0046], and the pressure adjusting unit adjusts an amount of the fluid [0047],
wherein each accommodating space is located along one side of the respective adjacent battery cell (see Fig. 6; [0052, 0056]).
Reinshagen discloses that each pressure pad (clamping device 300) can comprise internal spaces which can be connected not in a fluid conductive manner [0071]. Reinshagen does not specifically teach that “each accommodating space is individually adjustable for pressure”.
Schumann teaches a similar battery module (energy storage device 600, Fig. 6; [0034, 0047-0048, 0072-0073]) including a plurality pressure pads (gas bags 45, 55; Fig, 6; [0073, 0075]) designed to apply a variable pressure to the adjacent battery cells [0074-0075, 0086-0088]. Schumann teaches that a control unit controls the respective internal pressures of the pressure pads (gas bags) [0075, 0088], and may be configured such that the internal pressure of one of the pressure pads is adjusted independently of the internal pressure of the other respective pressure pad [0075]. Advantageously, by setting and optimizing the pressure as a function of a state of charge of the battery module, Schumann teaches that a cyclical service life and performance of the battery module may be improved [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the pressure pads of Reinshagen such that each accommodating space is individually adjustable for pressure as taught by Schumann, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in successful pressure pads capable of improving the service life and performance of a battery module.
Reinshagen discloses that the plurality of pressure pads are stacked along with the plurality of battery cells in the direction in which the plurality of battery cells are stacked (see Fig. 6).
The limitation “and the plurality of accommodating spaces individually compensate for deformation, which occurs due to expansion in the stacking direction, based on a position of each accommodating space” is an intended use limitation. The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Since modified Reinshagen renders obvious that the pressure of each accommodating space can be individually adjusted, modified Reinshagen renders obvious the structure necessary such that the plurality of accommodating spaces are capable of individually compensating for deformation. Thus, the intended use limitation is met.
Reinshagen further discloses that “the at least one surface of each pressure pad contacts the respective adjacent battery cell with the at least one surface of each pressure pad perpendicular to the stacking direction of each of the battery cells” (see Fig. 6), and applies pressure to battery cells in the stacking direction [0008, 0045-0047, 0052, 0056].
In the embodiment depicted in Fig. 6, Reinshagen discloses that two pressure pads (clamping devices 300) are included at either end of the battery stack [0056]. Reinshagen further discloses a different embodiment (Fig. 4) wherein a pressure pad (clamping device 300) is included in the center of the battery stack [0052]. Reinshagen discloses that providing a pressure pad (clamping device) in the center of the cell stack allows the pressure pad to act in a symmetrical manner on the multiplicity of battery cells [0052]. Furthermore, Reinshagen discloses that features described in different embodiments can be combined with one another [0077].
Therefore, although Reinshagen does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein a plurality of pressure pads are provided wherein “at least one of the plurality of pressure pads includes the at least one surface in contact with a surface of the respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells in the stacking direction and another surface in contact with a surface of another respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a pressure pad (clamping device) into the center of the battery module taught in Fig. 6 such that three pressure pads are provided. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would in a successful battery module capable of acting in a symmetrical manner on the multiplicity of battery cells, since combining prior art elements according to known methods normally requires only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143, A), and since Schumann evidences that there is no criticality to the number or positioning of pressure pads within a battery module [Schumann: 0073].
Therefore, modified Reinshagen renders obvious (see annotation of modified Reinshagen Fig. 6, below):
wherein at least one of the plurality of pressure pads includes the at least one surface in contact with a surface of the respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells in the stacking direction and another surface in contact with a surface of another respective adjacent battery cell of the plurality of battery cells in the stacking direction, and
the plurality of battery cells are divided into two or more groups along the stacking direction based on the at least one pressure pad.
PNG
media_image2.png
723
920
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of modified Reinshagen Fig. 6.
The limitation “the plurality of pressure pads respectively adjust pressure to each of the two or more groups” is an intended use limitation. The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, modified Reinshagen renders obvious that each of the pressure pads can be individually adjustable for pressure. Therefore, modified Reinshagen renders the structure necessary such that “the plurality of pressure pads respectively adjust pressure to each of the two or more groups”.
Reinshagen further discloses that “the plurality of pressure pads include pressure pads disposed on both sides of the plurality of battery cells in the stacking direction” (see annotation of modified Reinshagen Fig. 6, above).
Reinshagen discloses that the pressure pad can have a variety of configurations (Figs. 7-18), and that the internal space of the pressure pad can have various configurations (Figs. 16-18; [0067-0070]). For instance, Reinshagen discloses that the internal space can be subdivided into a multiplicity of chambers that are connected to one another in a fluid conductive manner [0069-0070]. Reinshagen does not specifically teach that “each pressure pad includes a branch unit for isolating a fluid inlet and the fluid discharged to a fluid outlet from each other therein”.
Ng teaches a cooling bladder (corresponds to pressure pad of modified Reinshagen) [0011-0012, 0047, 0087, 0096-0099]. The cooling bladder can have a single interior compartment or a parallel flow arrangement [0040, 0047, 0071, 0097-0098]. The Examiner notes that this establishes a bladder with a single interior as a substitutable equivalent to a bladder with a parallel flow interior (MPEP 2144.06, II). The parallel flow arrangement involves partitioning the cooling bladder such that fluid flows into the cooling bladder in one direction and exits in another direction (see Figs. 13A-13B; [0098-0099]). Advantageously, the parallel flow arrangement provides flow enhancement [0099].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided each of the pressure pads of modified Reinshagen to have a partition structure in order to achieve a parallel flow with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in an enhanced flow arrangement. Additionally, substituting equivalents known for the same purpose supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.06, II). The partition structure isolates a fluid inlet (see 31 in Ng Fig. 13A) from fluid discharged to a fluid outlet (see 33 in Ng Fig. 13A).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Reinshagen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including a pressure adjusting unit (control unit) which can dynamically control the pressure of each pressure pad and a pressure sensor for each pressure pad (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Reinshagen further discloses that each of the pressure pads (clamping devices 300) include a valve which allows the pressure to be checked and adjusted [0047]. The combination of the pressure sensors and the valves read on the recited limitation of a pressure measuring unit. Since the pressure measuring unit is used to check the pressure of the fill medium such that the pressure of the pressure pads can by dynamically controlled [0030, 0047], the pressure measuring unit has the structure necessary such that it can “measure a pressure applied to each of the accommodating spaces”.
The limitation “and for causing the pressure adjusting unit to reduce deformation which occurs due to pressure applied to the case when the battery cells are expanded” is an intended use limitation. The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, the modified Reinshagen renders obvious that the pressure of each pressure pad can be individually adjusted by a pressure adjusting unit based on measured pressure information from the pressure measuring unit (see also rejection of Claim 1; [0030, 0047]). Therefore, the prior art possesses the structure necessary to perform the intended use. Thus, the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Reinshagen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Reinshagen renders obvious a pressure measuring unit including pressure sensors (see rejection of Claims 1 and 17, above), Reinshagen does not teach that the pressure sensor is a surface pressure measuring sensor for measuring a surface pressure of the battery cell.
Schumann teaches a similar battery module (Fig. 6) including a plurality pressure pads (gas bags 45, 55; [0034, 0047-0048, 0072-0075, 0086-0088]). Schumann teaches that pressure measuring sensors (30, Fig. 4) can be provided on the surface of a battery cell (electrochemical storage element) (see Fig. 4; [0034, 0061]). Such a pressure sensor is able to successfully provide a local pressure value to a control unit, thereby allowing for the pressure of the pressure pad to be varied based on the state of charge of a battery cell and improving cyclical service life and performance of the battery [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the pressure sensors of Reinshagen to include a surface pressure measuring sensor for measuring a surface pressure of a battery cell with a reasonable expectation that such a pressure sensor would result in a successful pressure measuring unit capable of improving cyclical service life and performance of the battery module.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Reinshagen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Reinshagen further discloses that the pressure pads are formed of a flexible material [0009, 0045-0046] whose volume changes according to an amount of the fluid [0030, 0047].
Regarding Claims 14-15, modified Reinshagen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Reinshagen further discloses a battery pack (battery; [0025]) including the secondary battery module of claim 1 as required by Claim 14, and an electric vehicle (vehicle; [0027]) including the battery pack (battery) of claim 14 as required by Claim 15.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinshagen et al. (US-20170279088-A1; previously cited) in view of Schumann (US-20150295208-A1; previously cited) and in view of Ng et al. (US-20050089750-A1; previously cited) as applied to Claim 17, above, and in further view of Stanek et al. (US-20120244393-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Reinshagen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the pressure of the fill medium can be checked [Reinshagen: 0030, 0047], and that the pressure of the pressure pads can be dynamically controlled based on the actual pressure of the pressure pads [Reinshagen: 0030, 0047]. Although Reinshagen renders obvious a pressure measuring unit including pressure sensors (see rejection of Claims 1 and 17, above), Reinshagen does not teach that the pressure measuring unit includes a hydraulic pressure measuring sensor.
Stanek teaches a battery pack system including a space (enclosure space 126, Figs. 3-4) with a variable volume [0006, 0019-0021]. A fluid pressure sensor (136, Figs. 3-4) is disposed in fluid communication with the space with a variable volume [0021]. Based on information provided by the fluid pressure sensor to a control system, a pressurizing fluid can be pumped into or out of the space to induce either a positive or negative pressure [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided fluid pressure sensors as taught by Stanek in the battery module of modified Reinshagen with a reasonable expectation that the addition of fluid pressure sensors would result in a successful battery module capable of dynamically controlling the pressure of the pressure pads. Since the fluid sensor taught by modified Reinshagen measures the pressure of the fluid located in one of the accommodating spaces, it reads on a “hydraulic” pressure measuring sensor, as evidenced by The American Heritage Dictionary.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinshagen et al. (US-20170279088-A1; previously cited) in view of Schumann (US-20150295208-A1; previously cited) and in view of Ng et al. (US-20050089750-A1; previously cited) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Wang et al. (US-20150270586-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claims 6-7, modified Reinshagen renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Reinshagen contemplates using temperature to unfold the pressure pad [0021-0022, 0029, 0048], Reinshagen does not teach a temperature adjusting unit configured to adjust a temperature of the fluid.
Wang teaches a similar secondary battery module [0022, 0024, 0034, 0036-0037, 0039-0040]. Wang teaches that a thermal fluid may be directed to a flexible bladder (reads on pressure pad) to place pressure on a battery cell array [0005, 0034, 0039]. Wang teaches that battery cells generate heat during charging and discharging, which can negatively impact the performance and life of a battery cell array if not removed [0029]. Advantageously, using a thermal fluid provides effective thermal management of the battery cell array [0028-0030, 0035]. The thermal fluid can be heated and/or cooled using a liquid thermal management system [0028], and an electronic monitoring system can manage the temperature and charge state of each of the battery cells [0024]. The electronic monitoring system includes a temperature sensor for providing data regarding the battery [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a liquid thermal management system, an electronic monitoring system and a temperature sensor as taught by Wang to provide effective thermal management of the battery cells of Reinshagen. One ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such configuration would result in a successful battery module capable of removing heat, thereby improving the performance and life of the battery module. The electronic monitoring system and thermal management system corresponds to the recited limitation of “a temperature adjusting unit configured to adjust a temperature of the fluid” as required by Claim 6. The temperature sensor corresponds to the recited limitation of “a temperature measuring unit configured to measure a temperature of at least one of the fluid and the respective adjacent battery cell” as required by Claim 7. Since the temperature measuring unit (temperature sensor) is in communication with the temperature adjusting unit (electronic monitoring system) to provide temperature data regarding the battery [Wang: 0024], the temperature measuring unit is capable of providing a “measured temperature to the temperature adjusting unit”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been carefully considered. Applicant has argued that the submitted IDS (as summarized in the table provided at Pg. 7) establishes that the "pressure adjusting unit", "pressure measuring unit", "temperature adjusting unit" and "temperature measuring unit" are known in the prior art of record in the application (Remarks, Pg. 7). Applicant has argued that the table supports that the structural meaning of each unit under USC 112(b) and 112(f), and should not be interpreted as implying that the entire combination, arrangement, and control relationships of the claimed invention are disclosed or suggested by these references (Remarks, Pg. 7).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument. The Examiner concedes that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the term "pressure measuring unit" refers to a pressure sensor, and that the term "temperature measuring unit" refers to a temperature sensor. Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection of these terms has been withdrawn.
However, the Examiner maintains that the terms "pressure adjusting unit" and "temperature adjusting unit" should be interpreted under 112f, and that the terms should therefore be interpreted in light of the instant specification. Since the instant specification does not indicate the specific structure of the adjusting units (see 112(b) rejection, above), the terms are rejected under 112(b).
Although Applicant has provided specific examples of a "pressure adjusting unit" and a "temperature adjusting unit" known in the prior art, it is unclear that the instant specification envisioned such structures when claiming the adjusting units. Additionally, Applicant's argument that the table should not be interpreted as implying the entire combination, arrangement, and control relationship of the claimed invention (Remarks, Pg. 7), appears to suggest that the exact structure of the adjusting units is not encompassed by the cited references, thereby appearing to indicate that the structure is not clearly envisioned by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant's argument that the prior art of record does not teach the newly claimed "branch unit" is moot since the current rejections of record rely on Ng to teach this feature.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/26/2026
Prosecution Insights