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 July 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Here, in regards to the discussion of the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection during the interview of July 8, 2025, the submitted claims have undergone further search and examination, along with further comparison to applicable case law and precedent in the MPEP, as well as consultation with the USPTO’s 101 rejection team, and it has been accordingly determined that the limitations present in the amendment of July 8, 2025 fail to overcome the 101 rejection presented in the office action of April 8, 2025. Here, the limitation presented in the amended claim “reconstructing the battery pack, in response to determining the arrangement of the cells, in accordance with the state of the seal part indicated by the acquired prescribed index value” is a post-solution activity as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) where the guidance notes “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. ”.
Accordingly, based on this determination, the 101 rejection of Claim 1 is sustained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 in regards to the limitation requiring that the prescribed index value indicating a ratio of a smallest width of the seal part in a circumference at a time of measurement to a seal width of a cell of the plurality of laminated cells after manufacturing, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 is objected to due to the phrase “whether the cell to be used for…”, due to a missing “is”. Here a suggested rephrasing is “whether the cell is to be used for…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a reconstructing method of a battery pack comprising an acquisition step of acquiring a prescribed index value indicating a state of a seal part and an arrangement determination step of determining arrangement of the cells in reconstruction of the battery back in accordance with the state of the seal part indicated by the prescribed index value.
Here, beginning with the analysis of the claims under step 2A prong 1, as per MPEP section 2106.04, the limitation of claim 1 of acquiring a prescribed index value indicating a state of the seal part, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that is a mathematical process and a mental process. Here, the process of an “acquisition step” in light of the interpretation made based on paragraph [0008] (“In the acquisition step, the prescribed index value may be acquired by measuring the prescribed index value of the seal part of the cell that is disassembled from the collected battery pack,”) comprises mathematical concepts such as performing a measurement, as well as steps that are preformed mentally, being steps which can be directly performed in the mind of an observing person, where a person can observe a prescribed index value. Accordingly, based on this interpretation of the process, with it comprising both a mathematical analysis and a concept performed in the human mind it therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping and the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the limitation recites an abstract idea. Here, where the prescribed index value is a value indicating a ratio of a smallest width of the seal part in a circumference at a time of measurement to a seal width of a cell of the plurality of laminated cells after manufacturing, this definition of the prescribed index value does not change the scope of the mental process as discussed above.
Additionally, the limitation of Claim 1 of determining the arrangement of the cells in reconstruction of the battery pack in accordance with the state of the seal part indicated by the prescribed index value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that is a mathematical concept and a mental process. Here, the process of “determining arrangement” in light of the interpretation made based on paragraph [0009] of the specification (“In the arrangement determination step, as the state of the seal part indicated by the acquired prescribed index value improves, the cell of the prescribed index value may be determined to be arranged at a region where temperature becomes higher when the battery pack is used.”), comprises mathematical concepts such as performing calculations and/or comparing numerical values to a threshold, as well as being steps that are performed mentally, being steps which can be directly performed by an observing person, where an individual can observe or compare values, and determine how to arrange things based on that observation. Accordingly, based on this interpretation of the process, with it comprising both a mathematical analysis and a concept performed in the human mind it therefore falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping and the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the limitation recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, in regards to the analysis of the claim under step 2A prong B, as per MPEP section 2106.04, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim fails to recite any additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract ideas, as discussed above. As discussed above, the acquisition step and arrangement determination steps both represent abstract ideas. As the reconstructing method is defined by the language of the claim as comprising these two steps, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, where the abstract idea makes up the totality of the claimed limitations.
Additionally, in regards to the analysis of the claim under step 2B, as per MPEP section 2106.05, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations of the claim are all abstract ideas, without any additional limitations or elements which can amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Notably, where the abstract idea of the instant claim’s limitation comprises mathematical analysis and mental processes, it fails to include any direct application of the results of those processes into a physical medium, placing meaningful limits on the practice of the abstract idea. Accordingly, there are no additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires “reconstructing the battery pack, in response to determining the arrangement of the cells, in accordance with the state of the seal part indicated by the acquired prescribed index value” is a post-solution activity as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) where the guidance notes “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. ”.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Additionally, in regards to claims 2-4, said claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application, or recite any elements which are specifically more than the abstract idea. Here, claim 2 is directed towards modifying the acquisition step, specifying that the prescribed index value is acquired by measuring the prescribed index value of the seal part of the cell that is disassembled from the collected battery pack. Here, this further structure fails to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or comprise further steps which make use of the analyzed measurement.
Additionally, claim 2 further modifies the reconstructing method to further include a step of determining not to use the cell for reconstruction of the battery pack when the acquired prescribed index value does not satisfy a specified value. Here, this new limitation comprises an additional abstract idea, being directed towards a mathematical concept as a result of the process step comprising a mathematical comparison, without additional steps which make use of the determination.
Additionally, claims 3-4 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or recite elements which are specifically more than the abstract idea. Here, claim 3 is directed towards further specifying the nature of the arrangement determination step, stating that as the state of the part of the seal part indicated by the acquired prescribed index value be, the cell of the prescribed index value is determined to be arranged at a region where temperature becomes higher when the battery pack is used. This limitation, though providing additional context to the arrangement determination step, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application, as the arrangement determination step still consists entirely of a mathematical operation which determines potential placement of a cell within a battery pack, and notably does not require a practical application wherein the reassembly of the battery pack according to the arrangement determination step occurs.
Additionally, claim 4 further elaborates upon the mathematical operation specified in claim 3, requiring that based on the prescribed index value of a cell is determined to be above or below a value representing a good state of the seal part, the cell is determined to be arranged at a region in the battery pack where a temperature respectively does or does not become equal to or greater than a prescribed temperature when the battery pack is used. Here, because this limitation entirely comprises a determination step, it does not, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, make use of the determined arrangement in a practical application.
Additionally, Claims 9-12 fail to further provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, Claim 9 states that the reconstruction method further comprises “identifying a cell with a predetermined seal width relative to a threshold limit that is arranged at a target region”, where said feature is still an abstract idea. Additionally, Claim 9 requires that the reconstructing method further comprises “reconstructing the battery pack in response to identifying the cell with a predetermined seal with including arranging the cell at the target region”. Here, this reconstructing is a post-solution activity as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) where the guidance notes “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. ”.
Additionally, the same rationale applies to claim 10, where claim 10 requires further steps of determining whether the target region is the high temperature region and if based on that determination, the cell is to be used for all regions of the battery pack. Here, these steps fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a particular application, as the determination is not linked to a specific practical application. Additionally, the feature of claim 10 which requires reconstructing the battery pack in accordance with the cell used for all regions of the battery pack and the target region being the high temperature region constitutes post solution activity as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g), as discussed above.
Additionally, the feature of claim 11 further comprises post-solution activity as discussed above, with claim 11 being directed towards the automatic execution of said reconstruction.
Additionally, Claim 12 fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as it is directed to a step of further dividing the battery pack into first and second temperature portions, which respectively include a first plurality of cells with a first seal width, and a second plurality of cells with a second seal width. Here, this dividing does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, as it is directed to a subdivision which may be entirely a mental process, as dividing in this step does not require a physical separation. Additionally, where claim 12 further requires arranging as a part of the reconstruction one of the first plurality of the laminated cells or the second plurality of the laminated cells having smaller seal widths than the other on an upstream side, this is a post-solution activity as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g) where the guidance notes “the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. ”.
Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 9-12 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiyama (US 20190190054 A1), in further view of Bushnell (US 20160093837 A1) and Amano (US 20200403194 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Komiyama is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a reconstruction method of a battery pack (Abstract, “a management server generates rebuilding information for rebuilding a battery pack”), the reconstructing method comprising acquiring a prescribed index value indicating a state of the battery (Paragraph 0053, “A test service provider 32 tests performance of each cell collected by collection service provider 31. Specifically, test service provider 32 tests electrical characteristics of a collected cell.”), and determining arrangement of the cells in reconstruction of the battery pack (Paragraph 0056, “Specifically, in the first embodiment, rebuilding information for manufacturing a rebuilt product of a battery pack to be mounted on a vehicle 10 is generated by management server 20”).
However, Komiyama fails to identify the use of a plurality of laminated cells each having a seal part, their invention being directed towards a generic lithium-ion secondary battery assembly (Paragraph 0074, “Battery pack 110 includes a battery assembly constituted of a plurality of cells and includes, for example, a battery assembly in which a plurality of lithium ion secondary batteries are connected in series and/or in parallel as appropriate.”), and further fails to specifically identify a state of the seal part as being a metric which can be measured, instead looking towards deterioration parameters in general (Paragraph 0087, “includes an indicator indicating a state of deterioration of each cell or less likeliness of deterioration of each cell”).
Therefore, we look to Bushnell, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a laminate pouch battery (Paragraph 0025, “According to embodiments, a battery pouch is made of a multilayer laminate sheet.”) which comprises a seal portion, referred to by Bushnell as a sealed portion, which extends around the outer sides of the pouch and sets a minimum threshold distance between an outer edge of the battery pouch and an inner cavity (Paragraph 0025, “To accomplish complete sealing, a sealed portion (also referred as a “sealed flap” or simply “seal”), which may extend around multiple sides of a pouch and generally sets and/or maintains a minimum threshold distance between an outer edge of the battery pouch and an inner cavity (and thus, a battery within the cavity).”). Bushnell further discloses that when the seal’s width becomes too small, reaching a minimum threshold distance, the seal portion becomes too weak to maintain the integrity of the pouch under conditions such as impact and battery swelling (Paragraph 0025, “The minimum threshold distance is a minimum width (or other dimension) of the flap, below which the pouch seal may be too weak to maintain integrity of the pouch under certain conditions such as an impact, battery swelling, or the like.”) and that when the seal part width is less than the minimum threshold distance, contaminants may enter the battery and affect the electrode assembly within the laminated pouch (Paragraph 0033, “The seal of the battery pouch 100 helps prevent contaminants from entering the battery pouch 100 and corroding or otherwise affecting the electrode assembly inside the battery pouch.”).
Accordingly, based on this teaching of Bushnell, who discloses that a laminate battery’s seal part width determines if a battery is suitable for continued function, or if it is too narrow, so as to allow corrosion and degradation of the battery cell, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to recognize the seal part width as a parameter of consideration for the method of Komiyama, thereby modifying the method of Komiyama to be a reconstructing method of a battery pack including a plurality of laminated cells each having a seal part, where the method comprises acquiring a prescribed index value indicating a state of the seal part, here the width of the seal part, and determining the arrangement of the cells in reconstruction of the battery pack in accordance with the state of the seal part indicated by the acquired prescribed index value.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the prescribed index value indicate a value of the smallest with of the seal part in a circumference at a time of measurement to a seal width of a cell a cell of the plurality of laminated cells after manufacturing, as discussed above, Bushnell makes obvious the use of a minimum threshold distance to determine the sealing functionality of a given seal (Paragraph 0025, “The minimum threshold distance is a minimum width (or other dimension) of the flap, below which the pouch seal may be too weak to maintain integrity of the pouch under certain conditions such as an impact, battery swelling, or the like.”), where they fail to disclose the comparison of a ratio between the current seal width and a post-manufacturing seal width, instead making obvious the comparison between a current seal width and a minimum acceptable seal width.
Therefore, we look to Amano, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a battery packaging material for laminated battery cells (Abstract, “A battery packaging material is configured from a laminate including, at a minimum, a polyester film layer, an aluminum alloy foil layer, and a heat fusible resin layer in the stated order.”). Here, Amano discloses the use of a thickness remaining ratio to determine the suitability of a laminate material (Paragraph 0144, “Thickness Remaining Ratio of Heat-Sealable Resin Layer”), where the thickness remaining ratio is a ratio of a measured thickness of a sealable resin to an initial thickness at a time of manufacturing (Paragraph 0232, “The ratio of the total thickness of the two heat-sealable resin layers after thermal welding, relative to the total thickness of the two heat-sealable resin layers before thermal welding, was calculated to measure the remaining ratio (%) of the total thickness of the two heat-sealable resin layers.”). Here, where the thickness remaining ratio is used to determine the effectiveness of a battery after being processed and has desirable bounds (Paragraph 0145, “the thickness remaining ratio of the heat-sealable resin layer 4 is preferably 70% or more, and more preferably 80% or more, and preferred ranges include 70 to 95% and 80 to 95%. The upper limit of the thickness remaining ratio is, for example, about 95%.”), it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to implement the thickness remaining ratio into the method of Komiyama, to determine a suitability of a seal of a battery based on a ratio of a thickness relative to an initial post manufacturing thickness. Additionally, where Bushnell discloses, as discussed above, that a minimum threshold width can be used to determine the effective functionality of a battery seal, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply this teaching of Bushnell to the combination of Komiyama and Amano, thereby measuring a ratio of a smallest width of the seal part in a circumference at a time of measurement to a seal width of a cell of the plurality of laminated cells after manufacturing, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Additionally, Komiyama discloses reconstructing the battery pack (Paragraph 0064, “As described above, in the first embodiment, a battery pack for vehicle 10 is reconstructed by replacing at least some of a plurality of cells included in the battery pack mounted on vehicle 10 with replacement cells.”) in response to determining the arrangement of the cells (Paragraph 0056, “Specifically, in the first embodiment, rebuilding information for manufacturing a rebuilt product of a battery pack to be mounted on a vehicle 10 is generated by management server 20”), in accordance with the state of the seal part indicated by the acquired prescribed index value, as Komiyama and Bushnell make obvious the use of the acquired prescribed index value in determining the arrangement of reconstruction, where the reconstruction step follows the determination of the arrangement of reconstruction.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Komiyama makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Komiyama discloses structure wherein, in the acquisition step, the prescribed index value is acquired by measuring the prescribed index value of a seal part of a cell of the plurality of laminated cells that is disassembled from the battery pack, as depicted in Komiyama’s figure 1, which states that the collection service provider (31) disassembles collected battery packs (Paragraph 0051, “Collection service provider 31 disassembles collected battery packs and takes out cells from the battery packs.”) in a step before the test service provider (32) texts the cells to acquire their prescribed index values (Paragraph 0053, “A test service provider 32 tests performance of each cell collected by collection service provider 31.”). Accordingly, where the combination of Komiyama and Bushnell makes obvious structure wherein the state of the seal part of the laminated cell is an appropriate metric for testing, as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, the combination of Komiyama and Bushnell thereby makes obvious this limitation of the instant claim.
Additionally, Komiyama discloses structure wherein the reconstructing method further includes a step of determining not to use the cell for the reconstruction of the battery pack when the acquired prescribed index value of the seal part of the cell does not satisfy a specified value, through their disclosure of a test service provider (32) who determines if a cell is recyclable (Paragraph 0060, “As a result of the performance test, the cells are classified into recyclable cells and non-recyclable cells and the non-recyclable cells are passed to recycler 36.”) and then distributes non-recyclable cells to a recycler (36) who disassembles said cells for use as new cells or as source material for other projects (Paragraph 0058, “Recycler 36 disassembles cells determined as being non-recyclable by test service provider 32 for reclamation for use as new cells or as source materials for other products.”), where this therefore means that those cells are not used for the reconstruction of the battery pack.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Komiyama makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Komiyama discloses structure wherein in the arrangement determination step, the if the state of the battery improves, the cell of the plurality of cells of the prescribed index value is determined to be arranged at a region where temperature becomes higher when the battery pack is used, through their disclosure that their method includes steps where cells less likely to deteriorate are placed in regions with a higher temperature (Paragraph 0116, “When temperature Tedge is determined as being higher than temperature Tcen (YES in step S150), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack end”; Paragraph 0117, “When it is determined in step S150 that temperature Tedge is lower than temperature Tcen (NO in step S150), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack central portion and a cell in the pack central portion”).
Accordingly, as discussed above, the width of the seal part is an obvious metric for determining the state of a laminated cell, the combination of Komiyama and Bushnell thereby makes obvious structure where the seal part status width is used to determine the placement of the non-deteriorating cells in a higher temperature region of the battery pack-in-use.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Komiyama makes obvious the invention of Claim 3. Additionally, Komiyama further discloses structure wherein in the arrangement determination step, when the prescribed index value is equal to or more than a prescribed value representing a good state of the battery, the cell of the plurality of laminated cells of the prescribed index value is determined to be arranged at a region where temperature becomes equal to or more than a prescribed temperature when the battery pack is used, through their disclosure that their method includes steps where cells less likely to deteriorate are placed in regions with a higher temperature (Paragraph 0116, “When temperature Tedge is determined as being higher than temperature Tcen (YES in step S150), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack end”; Paragraph 0117, “When it is determined in step S150 that temperature Tedge is lower than temperature Tcen (NO in step S150), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack central portion and a cell in the pack central portion”).
Consequently, this means that where Komiyama discloses that cells with a lower likelihood of deterioration are placed in higher temperature in-use regions, cells with a higher likelihood of deterioration are placed in lower temperature in-use regions of the battery pack, thereby reading upon the limitation which requires that when the prescribed index value is less than the prescribed value, the cell of the prescribed index value is determined to be arranged at a region where temperature does not become equal to or more than the prescribed temperature when the battery pack is used.
Accordingly, where the disclosure of Bushnell makes obvious structure where the width of a seal part in a laminated battery is an appropriate metric for determining the likelihood of deterioration in a laminated cell, the combination of Komiyama and Bushnell thereby makes obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Komiyama makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above Bushnell makes obvious the use of identifying a cell with a predetermined seal width relative to a threshold limit (Paragraph 0025, “The minimum threshold distance is a minimum width (or other dimension) of the flap, below which the pouch seal may be too weak to maintain integrity of the pouch under certain conditions such as an impact, battery swelling, or the like.”), at a target region, where Komiyama further discloses structure wherein in the arrangement determination step, when the prescribed index value is equal to or more than a prescribed value representing a good state of the battery, the cell of the prescribed index value is determined to be arranged at a region where temperature becomes equal to or more than a prescribed temperature when the battery pack is used, through their disclosure that their method includes steps where cells less likely to deteriorate are placed in regions with a higher temperature (Paragraph 0116, “When temperature Tedge is determined as being higher than temperature Tcen (YES in step S150), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack end”; Paragraph 0117, “When it is determined in step S150 that temperature Tedge is lower than temperature Tcen (NO in step S150), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack central portion and a cell in the pack central portion”), where reconstructing the battery back in response to identifying the cell with a predetermined seal with includes arranging the cell at the target region.
Additionally, it is noted that where the instant claim does not provide any context for what is a “target region” any rationale for the placement of any cell, which identifies a cell based on a predetermined seal with relative to a threshold limit would be able to read upon this feature of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Komiyama makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Komiyama discloses determining whether the target region is the high temperature region, and determining in response to the target region being the high temperature region, whether the cell is to be used for all regions of the battery pack (Paragraph 0129, “As set forth above, according to the first embodiment, a rebuilt product in which a cell relatively less likely to deteriorate is arranged at a site where a temperature is high and deterioration is likely can be manufactured.”), and reconstructing the battery pack in accordance with the cell used for all regions of the battery pack and the target region being the high temperature region (Paragraph 0129, “Since such a rebuilt product can be less in variation in deterioration among cells in a battery pack, possibility of occurrence of overcharging due to variation in deterioration can be lessened. According to the first embodiment, an appropriate replacement cell can thus be selected in consideration of variation in temperature among cells.”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Komiyama makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Komiyama discloses automatically executing reconstruction of the battery pack in accordance with one or more machine instructions (Paragraph 0118, “When the rebuilding information is generated in step S 160 or S 170 , management server 20 transmits a command to manufacture a rebuilt product in accordance with the generated rebuilding information to terminal device 44 of battery pack manufacturer 34 (step S 180 ).”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Komiyama makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Komiyama discloses dividing the battery pack into a first temperature portion and a second temperature portion (Paragraph 0116, “When temperature Tedge is determined as being higher than temperature Tcen (YES in step S150), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack end”; Paragraph 0117, “When it is determined in step S150 that temperature Tedge is lower than temperature Tcen (NO in step S150), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack central portion and a cell in the pack central portion”), where each portion includes a respective plurality of cells, each of with inherently have a seal width value, thereby resulting in the first temperature portion having cells with a first cell width and the second temperature portion having cells with a second cell width.
Additionally, Komiyama discloses arranging as a part of the reconstruction, one of the plurality of first cells or the second plurality of laminated cells having smaller seal widths than the other on an upstream side, where “upstream side” is interpreted based on the definition provided in the specification where the “upstream side” is the side where the cooling mechanism of the apparatus are more effective, and therefore the temperature of the cells in said side is lower. Here, Komiyama discloses the placement of cells which are less likely to deteriorate in the higher temperature portion and cells which are more likely to deteriorate in the low temperature portion (Paragraph 0117, “When it is determined in step S 150 that temperature Tedge is lower than temperature Tcen (NO in step S 150 ), management server 20 generates rebuilding information for such rebuilding that a cell less likely to deteriorate is selected for the pack central portion and a cell in the pack central portion is equivalent in rate of deterioration to a cell at the pack end as described above by referring to temperature difference ΔT2 and recycled product DB 230 (step S 170 ).”). Additionally, where Bushnell makes discloses cells being more likely to deteriorate as having a smaller seal width (Paragraph 0025, “The minimum threshold distance is a minimum width (or other dimension) of the flap, below which the pouch seal may be too weak to maintain integrity of the pouch under certain conditions such as an impact, battery swelling, or the like.”) and makes obvious the consideration of current seal width being used to determine the likelihood of cell deterioration, the combination of Bushnell and Komiyama as discussed above therefore reads upon and makes obvious the limitation of the instant claim where the method includes arranging the smaller seal width-having cells on an upstream side.
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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725