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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4 and 9-11 are under examination.
Claims 5-8 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The portion of claim 1 which recites “with the thickness of each of the pair of stepped surfaces being inversely proportional to the Young's modulus of the material making up at least one of the restraint member or the respective one of the pair of end plates” is considered new matter.
The specification does not teach the thickness being inversely proportional to the Young’s modulus of the material and furthermore, does not teach how to achieve this inverse proportionality relationship.
The specification does teach using a material with a small Young’s modulus or a large Young’s modules, and teaches that the thickness needs to be set comparatively based on the material chosen to accommodate the surface pressure (instant specification, pg. 9, lines 15-22).
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
The portion of claim 1 which recites “a thickness of each of the pair of stepped surfaces is a function of the Young's modulus of a material” is unclear, because the Young’s modulus of a material is a material property that is independent of thickness.
Clarification is required.
The portion of claim 1 which recites “the restraint member and the pair of end plates are less likely to buckle when acted on by a surface pressure resulting from the restraint in the first direction” is considered new matter.
Under the assumption that both the restraint member and the end plate are made of a hard material such as iron or cast iron, this would then result in a structure that is less likely to buckle when acted on by a surface pressure resulting from the restrain in the first direction.
Modification of claim language is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Shinobu (WO 2019130937 A1) and in view of the machine translation of Jang (WO 2018199438 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shinobu teaches a power storage module (pg.1, para.3) comprising: a plurality of power storage cells stacked along a first direction (Fig. 1, the cells (1) are stacked along a first direction); a pair of end plates provided at ends of the stack of the plurality of power storage cells (Fig. 1, item 3); and a restraint member that restrains the pair of end plates and the plurality of power storage cells in the first direction (Fig. 1, item 4 [binding bar]), wherein the restraint member includes a thin portion (Fig. 2, item 6 [plate-like bar]), a pair of thick portions (Fig. 2, item 5 [locking block]), and a pair of stepped surfaces between the thin portion and each of the pair of thick portions (SEE FIGURE 2),
and the pair of stepped surfaces in abutment with the pair of endplates in the first direction (SEE FIGURE 2) (See Figure 2 for stepped surface breakdown) and contacting surfaces of the end plates on opposite sides of the end plates from the stack of the plurality of power storage cells (SEE FIGURE 2), with the pair of stepped surfaces pressing the pair of end plates toward each other in the first direction to bring the pair of end plates closer to each other (SEE FIGURE 1, [the stepped surfaces bring the pair of endplates together]), wherein a thickness of each of the pair of stepped surfaces is a function of the Young's modulus of a material making up at least one of the restraint member or a respective one of the pair of end plates, with the thickness of each of the pair of stepped surfaces being inversely proportional to the Young's modulus of the material making up at least one of the restraint member or the respective one of the pair of end plates, such that the restraint member and the pair of end plates are less likely to buckle when acted on by a surface pressure resulting from the restraint in the first direction (“As discussed under the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, this new claim limitation is not supported by the specification, and Applicant failed to teach how to achieve this claim limitation.”)
Regarding Young’s modulus of the material:
Shinobu teaches that the end plate can be made of cast iron (pg. 5, para. 5). Based on the instant specification, Shinobu’s end plate is less likely to buckle due to the material composition, “in the case where the end plate is composed of a hard material such as cast iron, the end plate is less likely to be buckled even when the surface pressure of end plate becomes large, so that the thickness of stepped surface can be set to be comparatively thin” (instant specification, pg. 9, lines 10-14).
Shinobu also teaches that the restraint member can be made of stainless steel or iron (pg. 4, para. 2 and pg. 6, para. 5). Based on the instant specification, Shinobu’s restraint member is less likely to buckle due to the material composition, “in the case where the restraint member is composed of a hard material such as iron, the restraint member is less likely to buckled even when the surface pressure of restraint member becomes large, so that the thickness of stepped surface can be set to be comparatively thin” (instant specification, pg. 9, lines 19-22).
Regarding the thin portion and the pair of thick portions being formed in one piece, Shinobu appears to show the thin and thick portions being formed of multiple pieces. The forming of an integral one-piece construction instead of several parts secured together is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the thin and thick portions, of Shinobu’s restrain member, as a one-piece structure. The option of one-piece forming is an engineering choice, taught in re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
PNG
media_image1.png
753
1053
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shinobu does not teach that the thickness of the stepped surface can be set to be comparatively thin.
Jang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that a stepped surface of a component is thinner than the (cap) plate (para. 39).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have manufactured the stepped surface of Shinobu’s power storage, to have a thinner surface compared to the adjacent mating surface (end plate of Shinobu), as taught by Jang, in order to accommodate a safety feature, such as a gas vent, as taught by Jang (para. 39).
The comparatively thin stepped surface of the instant specification accommodates the safety feature of preventing the structure from buckling (instant specification, pg. 9, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 2, Shinobu teaches the power storage module according to the power storage module according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the pair of end plates is composed of aluminum or cast iron (pg. 5, para. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Shinobu teaches the power storage module according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the restraint member is composed of aluminum, iron, or stainless steel (pg. 4, para. 2 [the locking block (5) can be made of iron, stainless steel, or aluminum]) (pg. 6, para. 5 [the bind bar is manufactured by molding the lock block (5) into an integral structure]. Therefore, the bind bar is made of the same material as the lock block).
Regarding claim 9, Shinobu teaches the power storage module according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the pair of thick portions is provided with a hole portion (Fig. 2, item 5a [guide recess]), and a fixing member is inserted into the hole portion along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 2, item 8 [bolt]), the fixing member being screwed into one of the pair of end plates (Fig. 2, item 8 screwed into item 3a [fitting portion]), thereby fixing the restraint member to the one of the pair of end plates.
Claims 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Shinobu (WO 2019130937 A1) and in view ofJang (WO 2018199438 A1) and Egashira (US 20220006134 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Shinobu teaches the power storage module according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein each of the plurality of power storage cells includes an electrode terminal (Fig. 1, item 15 [electrode terminal]) and a housing (Fig. 1, item 10 [battery case]), the housing has an upper surface on which the electrode terminal is provided (Fig. 1), and a bottom surface facing the upper surface (Fig. 1).
Modified Shinobu does not teach and each of the thin portion and the pair of thick portions includes a flange portion facing the upper surface and the bottom surface.
Egashira, in the same field of endeavor, battery modules, teaches
a power storage module (Fig. 2),
wherein each of the plurality of power storage cells includes an electrode terminal (Fig. 2, item 22) and a housing (Fig. 2, item 18), the housing has an upper surface on which the electrode terminal is provided (Fig. 2), and a bottom surface facing the upper surface (Fig. 2), and each of the thin portion and the pair of thick portions includes a flange portion facing the upper surface and the bottom surface (Fig. 2, item 54 [pair of arms] [each restraint member has a flat surface and a pair of arms (flange portions)]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shinobu’s restraint member to have flanges protruding from the flat surface, as taught by Egashira, in order to fasten the plurality of batteries and to fasten the battery stack in arrangement according to a specific direction, as taught by Egashira (para. 0044).
Regarding claim 10, modified Shinobu teaches a power storage module (pg.1, para.3) comprising: a plurality of power storage cells stacked along a first direction (Fig. 1, the cells (1) are stacked along a first direction), each of the power storage cells including an electrode terminal and a housing (Fig. 1, item 15 [electrode terminal]) (Fig. 1, item 10 [battery case]), the housing having an upper surface on which the electrode terminal is formed and a bottom surface opposite to the upper surface in a direction orthogonal to the first direction (See Fig. 1); an end plate provided at an end of the stack of the plurality of power storage cells (Fig. 1, item 3); and a restraint member that restrains the end plate and the plurality of power storage cells in the first direction (Fig. 2, item 6 [plate-like bar]), wherein the restraint member includes a thin portion (Fig. 2, item 6 [plate-like bar]), a thick portion (Fig. 2, item 5 [locking block]), and a stepped portion having a stepped surface between the thin portion and the thick portion (Fig. 2), the stepped surface is in abutment with the end plate in the first direction contacting a surface of the end plate on an opposite side of the end plate from the stack of power storage cells (Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding the thin portion and the pair of thick portions being formed in one piece, Shinobu appears to show the thin and thick portions being formed of multiple pieces. The forming of an integral one-piece construction instead of several parts secured together is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the thin and thick portions, of Shinobu’s restrain member, as a one-piece structure. The option of one piece forming is an engineering choice, taught in re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965).
Modified Shinobu does not teach that the restraint member includes a flange portion facing the upper surface and the bottom surface of the housing of the power storage cells and the stepped portion of the restraint member extends to the flange portion.
Egashira teaches that the restraint member includes a flange portion (item 56) facing the upper surface and the bottom surface of the housing of the power storage cells (Fig. 2).
Modified Shinobu teaches that the stepped portion of the restraint member extends to the flange portion. Egashira teaches the flanged surfaces in Fig. 2, item 54 [pair of arms]. [Each restraint member has a flat surface and a pair of arms (flange portions)]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shinobu’s restraint member to have flanges extending from the stepped portions, as taught by Egashira, in order to fasten the plurality of batteries and to fasten the battery stack in arrangement according to a specific direction, as taught by Egashira (para. 0044).
Regarding claim 11, modified Shinobu teaches the power storage module according to claim 10, wherein the restraint member includes a body portion facing a side surface of the housing of the power storage cells (Fig. 1), the side surface being orthogonal to the upper surface and the bottom surface (Fig. 1).
Egashira teaches that the flange portion of the restraint member is continuous to the body portion of the restraint member (Fig. 2, item 56 [the flange portion is continuous to the body potion of item 54]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721