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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that using Lee's sensor placement in Sauerteig's rig would increase measurement error (p. 13). There is no teaching or suggestion in either reference to support this assertion.
Applicant contends that Lee and Sauerteig are incompatible because they operate under different loads (p. 13). There is no teaching or suggestion in either reference that limits their applicability to any particular pressure.
Applicant contends that the rejection fails to consider "the fact that Sauerteig structures its compression jig to purposely limit structural deflections" (p. 14). However, no such assertion could be found in the reference.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant contends that there is no teaching or suggestion that Keller's processor is configured to generate the claimed correlation data file (p. 15). However, the rejection does not rely on Keller for such a teaching. Keller teaches automation of signal processing using a processor, and Correlation and Dependence teaches correlations are useful to indicate predictive relationships. As stated in the rejection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention for the automated signal processing to include the correlation. The rejection does not include a "capable of" argument.
The rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauerteig et al. (“Electrochemical-mechanical coupled modeling and parameterization of swelling and ionic transport in lithium-ion batteries,” Journal of Power Sources 378, pp. 235-247, February 2018) in view of Lee et al. ("Battery dimensional changes occurring during charge/discharge cycles—thin rectangular lithium ion and polymer cells", Journal of Power Sources 119-121, pp. 833-837, June 2003), Keller ("The coming revolution in sensor and signal processing", Military+Aerospace Electronics, https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14182327/military-aerospace-sensor-signal-processing, August 25, 2020), and "Correlation and Dependence", Wikipedia article dated February 28, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190225171631/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence, retrieved February 19, 2025, hereinafter referred to as “Correlation and Dependence”.
Regarding claim 1, Sauerteig teaches a system for assessment of dimensional variation of a battery during charge/discharge cycling comprising a test fixture configured to hold a battery (modified compression jig, Sauerteig Fig. 2b) comprising a pressure plate, a reaction plate parallel to the pressure plate to sandwich the battery, elastic members (springs) to adjust applied force, load sensors configured to detect applied force, and a displacement sensor to detect changes in battery thickness (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b below). Sauerteig teaches that the battery is tested using a CTS cell tester (Sauerteig 3.2 Measurement techniques, last paragraph), which is an electronic hardware device configured to regulate an electrical current applied to the battery cell.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sauerteig teaches a support plate mounted to the reaction plate (leftmost support plate in modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above). Sauerteig teaches that the displacement sensor is mounted to the rightmost support plate. However, the particular placement of the sensor is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to place the sensor on either support plate, including the support plate mounted to the reaction plate.
The probe for the displacement sensor extends through an aperture in the support plate to the pressure plate (Sauerteig Fig. 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a similar aperture when placing the sensor on the other support plate.
Sauerteig teaches that the displacement sensor is used to detect changes in thickness of the cell (Sauerteig 3.2. Measurement techniques, final paragraph). Sauerteig does not teach that the displacement sensor contacts the pressure plate. Lee teaches that a displacement sensor (thickness gauge) contacting a pressure plate can be used to measure changes in thickness of a battery cell during cycling (Lee 2. Experimental and Fig. 1). The two configurations are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Sauerteig teaches the use of load sensors (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above). Sauerteig does not teach the use of an electronic processor to gather the data from all of the sensors to generate a file representing the correlation. Sauerteig teaches that the point of the testing and modeling is to study the relationship between the physical and electrochemical performance of the batteries (Sauerteig Abstract). Correlation and Dependence teaches that correlations are useful to indicate predictive relationships (Correlation and Dependence 2nd paragraph). Keller teaches that automating the processing of signals from sensors using electronic processors allows for improved data handling (Keller p. 1 and p. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to generate correlation data as taught by Correlation and Dependence in order to indicate predictive relationships, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to automate that process using an electronic processor as taught by Keller in order to improve data handling.
PNG
media_image2.png
466
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the jig includes posts that set the separation distance between the support plate and the reaction plate and guide the movement of the pressure plate (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claim 6, the jig includes a plurality of coil springs between the pressure plate and the support plate (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claim 11, Sauerteig teaches a system for assessment of dimensional variation of a battery during charge/discharge cycling comprising a test fixture configured to hold a battery (modified compression jig, Sauerteig Fig. 2b) comprising a pressure plate, a reaction plate parallel to the pressure plate to sandwich the battery, elastic members (springs) to adjust applied force, load sensors configured to detect applied force, and a displacement sensor to detect changes in battery thickness (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above). Sauerteig teaches that the battery is tested using a CTS cell tester (Sauerteig 3.2 Measurement techniques, last paragraph), which is an electronic hardware device configured to regulate an electrical current applied to the battery cell.
Sauerteig teaches a support plate mounted to the reaction plate (leftmost support plate in modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above). Sauerteig teaches that the displacement sensor is mounted to the rightmost support plate. However, the particular placement of the sensor is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to place the sensor on either support plate, including the support plate mounted to the reaction plate.
The probe for the displacement sensor extends through an aperture in the support plate to the pressure plate (Fig. 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a similar aperture when placing the sensor on the other support plate.
Sauerteig teaches that the displacement sensor is used to detect changes in thickness of the cell (Sauerteig 3.2. Measurement techniques, final paragraph). Sauerteig does not teach that the displacement sensor contacts the pressure plate. Lee teaches that a displacement sensor (thickness gauge) contacting a pressure plate can be used to measure changes in thickness of a battery cell during cycling (Lee 2. Experimental and Fig. 1). The two configurations are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding claim 14, the jig includes posts that set the separation distance between the support plate and the reaction plate and guide the movement of the pressure plate (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claim 16, the jig includes a plurality of coil springs between the pressure plate and the support plate (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claim 25, Sauerteig does not teach that the load sensor is mounted on the reaction plate. However, the particular placement of the sensor is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and the load at the reaction plate is necessarily the same as that at the pressure plate, since the battery is not moving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to place the sensor on either side of the battery, including on thereaction plate.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauerteig in view of Lee, Keller, and Correlation and Dependence as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of “Automotive Clutches, Transmissions, and Transaxles,” Construction Mechanic Basic Volume 1, Chapter 10, NAVEDTRA 14264 A, Naval Education and Training Command, June 2014 (hereinafter referred to as NAVEDTRA).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sauerteig does not teach a retention member with pockets for elastic members. Sauerteig teaches a plurality of springs arranged on the rods (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above). NAVEDTRA teaches that pockets in pressure plates may be used to accommodate springs (NAVEDTRA 2.5.1 Coil Spring Pressure Plate, p. 10-6). Internal rods and external pockets are therefore art-recognized equivalents for placing coil springs, and substituting art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sauerteig does not teach a retention member with pockets for elastic members. Sauerteig teaches a plurality of springs arranged on the rods (see modified Fig. Sauerteig 2b above). NAVEDTRA teaches that pockets in pressure plates may be used to accommodate springs (NAVEDTRA 2.5.1 Coil Spring Pressure Plate, p. 10-6). Internal rods and external pockets are therefore art-recognized equivalents for placing coil springs, and substituting art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauerteig in view of Lee, Keller, and Correlation and Dependence as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, as evidenced by Gamry Instruments (“Our Partners” web page retrieved on March 1, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210301110805/https://www.gamry.com/electrochemistry-applications/gamry-partners/, hereinafter referred to as Gamry).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sauerteig does not explicitly teach that the electrical hardware includes a potentiostat. Sauerteig teaches the use of a BaSyTec CTS cell tester (Sauerteig 3.2 Measurement techniques, last paragraph), and Gamry teaches that all BaSyTec testing systems include a Gamry potentiostat.
Regarding claim 17, modified Sauerteig does not explicitly teach that the electrical hardware includes a potentiostat. Sauerteig teaches the use of a BaSyTec CTS cell tester (Sauerteig 3.2 Measurement techniques, last paragraph), and Gamry teaches that all BaSyTec testing systems include a Gamry potentiostat.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauerteig in view of Lee, Keller, and Correlation and Dependence as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ravet et al. (US 2012/0319655 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sauerteig teaches the use of a temperature control unit to expose the fixture to a predetermined temperature (Sauerteig 3.2 Measurement techniques, last paragraph). Sauerteig does not teach any particular type of temperature control unit. Ravet teaches that temperature control chambers (i.e., environmental chambers) can be used to maintain the temperature of electrochemical cells during operation (Ravet [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional means, including a temperature control chamber, as the temperature control unit of Sauerteig.
Sauerteig does not explicitly teach the use of a temperature sensor. However, a temperature sensor is necessarily part of any temperature control unit, and Sauerteig teaches that temperature affects battery performance and modelling (Sauerteig 2.1 Electrochemical model, equation 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to monitor temperature for more accurate modeling.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sauerteig teaches that temperature affects battery performance and modelling (Sauerteig 2.1 Electrochemical model, equation 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate temperature data into the correlation for more accurate modeling.
Regarding claim 18, Sauerteig teaches a system for assessment of dimensional variation of a battery during charge/discharge cycling comprising a test fixture configured to hold a battery (modified compression jig, Sauerteig Fig. 2b) comprising a pressure plate, a reaction plate parallel to the pressure plate to sandwich the battery, elastic members (springs) to adjust applied force, load sensors, and a displacement sensor to detect changes in battery thickness (see modified Sauerteig Fig. 2b above). Sauerteig teaches that the battery is tested using a CTS cell tester (Sauerteig 3.2 Measurement techniques, last paragraph), which is an electronic hardware device configured to regulate an electrical current applied to the battery cell.
Sauerteig teaches the use of a temperature control unit expose the fixture to a predetermined temperature (Sauerteig 3.2 Measurement techniques, last paragraph). Sauerteig does not teach any particular type of temperature control unit. Ravet teaches that temperature control chambers (i.e., environmental chambers) can be used to maintain the temperature of electrochemical cells during operation (Ravet [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional means, including a temperature control chamber, as the temperature control unit of Sauerteig.
Sauerteig does not explicitly teach the use of a temperature sensor. However, a temperature sensor is necessarily part of any temperature control unit, and Sauerteig teaches that temperature affects battery performance and modelling (Sauerteig 2.1 Electrochemical model, equation 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to monitor temperature for more accurate modeling.
Sauerteig does not teach the use of an electronic processor to gather the data from all of the sensors to generate a file representing the correlation. Sauerteig teaches that the point of the testing and modeling is to study the relationship between the physical and electrochemical performance of the batteries (Sauerteig Abstract). Correlation and Dependence teaches that correlations are useful to indicate predictive relationships (Correlation and Dependence 2nd paragraph). Keller teaches that automating the processing of signals from sensors using electronic processors allows for improved data handling (Keller p. 1 and p. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to generate correlation data as taught by Correlation and Dependence in order to indicate predictive relationships, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to automate that process using an electronic processor as taught by Keller in order to improve data handling.
Sauerteig teaches that temperature affects battery performance and modelling (2.1 Electrochemical model, equation 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate temperature data into the correlation for more accurate modeling.
Sauerteig teaches a support plate mounted to the reaction plate (leftmost support plate in modified Fig. 2 above). Sauerteig teaches that the displacement sensor is mounted to the rightmost support plate. However, the particular placement of the sensor is an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to place the sensor on either support plate, including the support plate mounted to the reaction plate.
The probe for the displacement sensor extends through an aperture in the support plate to the pressure plate (Fig. 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a similar aperture when placing the sensor on the other support plate.
Sauerteig teaches that the displacement sensor is used to detect changes in thickness of the cell (Sauerteig 3.2. Measurement techniques, final paragraph). Sauerteig does not teach that the displacement sensor contacts the pressure plate. Lee teaches that a displacement sensor (thickness gauge) contacting a pressure plate can be used to measure changes in thickness of a battery cell during cycling (Lee 2. Experimental and Fig. 1). The two configurations are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding claim 19, the jig includes posts that set the separation distance between the support plate and the reaction plate and guide the movement of the pressure plate (see modified Fig. 2b above).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauerteig in view of Lee, Keller, Correlation and Dependence, and Ravet as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of “Automotive Clutches, Transmissions, and Transaxles,” Construction Mechanic Basic Volume 1, Chapter 10, NAVEDTRA 14264 A, Naval Education and Training Command, June 2014 (hereinafter referred to as NAVEDTRA).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sauerteig does not teach a retention member with pockets for elastic members. Sauerteig teaches a plurality of springs arranged on the rods (see modified Fig. 2b above). NAVEDTRA teaches that pockets in pressure plates may be used to accommodate springs (2.5.1 Coil Spring Pressure Plate, p. 10-6). Internal rods and external pockets are therefore art-recognized equivalents for placing coil springs, and substituting art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauerteig in view of Lee and NAVEDTRA as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Park (US 2013/0175839 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, modified Sauerteig teaches that measurements are taken at different jig force values (Sauerteig Conclusions, penultimate paragraph). Sauerteig does not teach any particular means of varying the force. Park teaches that screws can be used to adjust the pressure of compression springs by moving a plate (Park [0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate such screws into the jig of modified Sauerteig in order to allow for adjustments to jig force.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauerteig in view of Lee, NAVEDTRA, and Park as applied to claims 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Clamping Cauls ("Clamping Cauls: The secret to great glue-ups," Fine Woodworking, March 2011, retrieved from https://www.finewoodworking.com/2011/03/08/clamping-cauls-the-secret-to-great-glue-ups on November 20, 2025).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, modified Sauerteig does not teach that the screw includes a swivel-mounted contact. However, providing unfixed swivel-mounted tips for clamping screws is a well-known means of applying pressure to a pressure plate. See, for example, Clamping Cauls (figure on p. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional method, including a swivel-mounted tip, on the locking screw of modified Sauerteig in order to maintain firm contact with the plate compressing the spring.
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722