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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
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 thus dependent claims 2-6 ,11-20 and 24 are 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(s) 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. Claim 1 was amended to recite additional language, specifically, claim 1 recites “wherein the gaps are caused by thermal contraction and volumetric contraction of a stacked structure of the all-solid-state battery when the temperature decreases and when the state of charge decreases”. The Examiner notes, the specification was reviewed in its entirety and does not find support for the recited limitations of thermal and volumetric contractions. The Applicant has not provided any citations to further support these amended limitations. The specification teaches a “contraction”, which is caused by temperature [0036]. The terms thermal and volumetric are not defined in the specification and there are no examples that would lead one to conclude what is meant by thermal or volumetric contractions.
The Applicant is invited to provide support for these limitations, or amend the language of the claims that align with language supported by the instant specification.
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 thus dependent claims 2-6 ,11-20 and 24 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 1 recites wherein the gaps are caused by thermal contraction and volumetric contraction of a stacked structure of the all-solid-state battery when the temperature decreases and when the state of charge decreases.” The specification does not define the terms – thermal and volumetric contractions. What is meant by volumetric contractions and what are the parameters that affect this type of contraction. What is meant by thermal contractions and what are the parameters that affect thermal contractions. There is no support found in the specification. To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend the claim language which aligns with the terms that are supported by the specification. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will reject this limitation by interpreting the gaps are formed by contractions due to pressure as this how the specification defines the contractions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment received 12/17/2025 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Hettrich'959 fails to disclose the specific interfaces where gaps form and the dual causation mechanism for gap formation as recited in amended claim 1. Remarks p. 7-8
Applicant argues that Minamiura suggests a fundamentally different system focused on heating through pressure manipulation, not gap reduction at specific interfaces. Remarks p. 7-8
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant specification teaches the gaps are due to the - in a case where the temperature of the all-solid-state battery 1 is low, the stacked structure of the battery device 10 contracts, which is likely to cause a gap at, for example, the interface between the negative electrode 11 and the solid electrolyte layer 13 and the interface between the positive electrode 12 and the solid electrolyte layer 13. In such a case, applying pressure to the stacked structure10S via the fluid F from the outside of the packaging material 16 reduces the gap at, for example, the interface between the negative electrode 11 and the solid electrolyte layer 13 and the interface between the positive electrode 12 and the solid electrolyte layer 13, making it possible to provide a sufficient movement path for charged elements such as lithium ions [0064]. Thus, it is the Examiners position, the gaps caused by the contractions are a functional characteristic of when the battery device contracts due to pressure/temperature. Therefore, this limitation (i.e.gaps] has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e -----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. ----. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). MPEP 2113. The prior art teaches the structure and is described in the rejection below (will not be repeated here for brevity purposes).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of references fails to suggest the specific technical solution of amended claim 1. The cited references do not collectively suggest controlling pressure to reduce gaps at the specific interfaces recited in amended claim 1, namely between current collectors and active material layers and between active material layers and solid electrolyte, caused by the dual mechanism of thermal and volumetric contraction, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., The cited references do not collectively suggest controlling pressure to reduce gaps at the specific interfaces recited in amended claim 1, namely between current collectors and active material layers and between active material layers and solid electrolyte, caused by the dual mechanism of thermal and volumetric contraction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The rejection is updated for the amended claims and maintained for the previously presented and original claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-16, 19-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettrich’959 (US 20200168959 A1) in view of Hettrich’252 (US 20190263252 A1) and Minamiura (US 2016/0149275).
Regarding claim 1, Hettrich‘959 teaches an all-solid-state battery control system (Fig. 2, [0066]) comprising: an all-solid-state battery (200, Fig. 2) including a solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte, see [0028]); a housing (214, Fig. 2) having a space (interior of 214, Fig. 2) containing the all-solid-state battery (212, see Fig. 2 where 212 is inside 214 and [0066]); a fluid (compressible fluid within 204, Fig. 2 and see [0069]) configured to fill the space (interior of 214) of the housing (214, see [0069] where the compressible fluid pumped into 214; hence, the compressible fluid is capable of filling the interior of 214); a pressurizer (206, Fig. 2) configured to apply pressure to the all-solid-state battery (200, Fig. 2) via the fluid (compressible fluid, see [0069] where 206 applies pressure to the compressible fluid within 200); and a processor (processor, see [0035]) configured to control a magnitude of the pressure to be applied to the all-solid-state battery (200) by the pressurizer (206, see [0035] and [0066] where the processor of 202 is in communication with 206), but does not specifically teach for the embodiment of Fig. 2 on a basis of a temperature of the all-solid- state battery (200) and a state of charge of the all-solid-state battery, wherein the processor of charge of the all-solid-state battery, wherein the processor is configured to control the pressurizer to increase the pressure for the all-solid-state battery in a continuous or stepwise manner, as the temperature of the all-solid-state battery decreases and as the state of charge of the all-solid-state battery decreases, to suppress an increase in internal resistance by reducing gaps at interfaces between components of the all-solid-state battery.
However, Hettrich‘959 teaches controlling a magnitude of the pressure to be applied to an all-solid-state battery by the pressurizer on a basis of a temperature of the all-solid- state battery (temperature of the battery, see [0080]) and a state of charge of the all-solid-state battery (power of the battery, see [0080]; also see [0079]).
It would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hettrich‘959 such that the processor is configured to control a magnitude of the pressure to be applied to an all-solid-state battery by the pressurizer on a basis of a temperature of the all-solid- state battery and a state of charge of the all-solid-state battery as taught by Hettrich ‘959 because Hettrich ‘959 teaches that pressurizing and depressurizing the battery system based on temperature and battery charge is important for the management of volume expansion of active materials in the battery. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
the combination of Hettrich’959 and Hettrich’252 does not teach wherein: the processor is configured to increase the pressure in a continuous or stepwise manner, as the state-of-charge of the all-solid-state battery decreases.
However, Hettrich’959 further teaches a processor (see [0035]) configured to increase the pressure in response to a sensed condition (see [0147, 0169] where pressure is increased in response to a sensed condition), such as a decreased state-of-charge of the all-solid-state battery (see [0076] where pressure management is performed to maintain pressure uniformity as a battery is charged from a discharged state). Hettrich’959 further teaches that “management of battery pressure is related to a ratio for expansion: compression of the battery cell”, that this volumetric expansion is coupled to the state of charge of the battery with volume decrease during discharge, and that “[a]ccomodating the increase in the volume of the battery upon charge is important to battery design, and the management of the inherent pressure(s) involved upon such battery volume increases is desirable, for example, in extending the lifetime of the battery” [0076].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the processor to increase the pressure as the state of charge of the all-solid-state battery decreases since Hettrich’959 teaches to control the pressure to account for the volumetric decrease that occurs as state of charge is reduced since Hettrich’959 expressly teaches managing the pressure to accommodate volume changes, and pressure and volume are inversely proportional characteristics.
Hettrich’959 is silent as to whether this pressure management would be performed in a continuous or step-wise manner; however, as Hettrich’959 does teach increasing the pressure, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the processor to increase the pressure in either a continuous or stepwise manner, as those are the typical ways in which one could increase the pressure, as any cessation of the continuous increase would cause a stepwise increase.
Hettrich‘959 does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein: the processor is configured to increase the pressure in a continuous or stepwise manner, as the temperature of the all-solid-state battery decreases.
However, Minamiura teaches increasing the pressure in a continuous or stepwise manner, as the temperature of a secondary battery decreases (see [0029] where controller raises internal pressure when a detected temperature is below a threshold temperature through a process; see Fig. 5 where pressure increases continuously as temperature increases and is increased in a stepwise manner; see [0093] where, as the temperature will decrease to or below a threshold temperature, a controller is configured to begin increasing the pressure).
It would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hettrich‘959 such that the processor is configured to increase the pressure in a continuous or stepwise matter, as the temperature of the all-solid-state battery decreases as taught by Minamiura to quickly heat the battery to a threshold temperature.
The combination of Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 does not specifically teach wherein: the processor is configured to increase the pressure in a continuous or stepwise manner, as the temperature of the all-solid-state battery decreases.
However, Minamiura teaches increasing the pressure in a continuous or stepwise manner, as the temperature of a secondary battery decreases (see [0029] where controller raises internal pressure when a detected temperature is below a threshold temperature through a process; see Fig. 5 where pressure increases continuously as temperature increases and is increased in a stepwise manner; see [0093] where, as the temperature will decrease to or below a threshold temperature, a controller is configured to begin increasing the pressure).
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 such that the processor is configured to increase the pressure in a continuous or stepwise matter, as the temperature of the all-solid-state battery decreases as taught by Minamiura to quickly heat the battery to a threshold temperature.
The Minamiura reference disclose a heating system including an alkaline secondary battery and a controller. The alkaline secondary battery includes: a power generating element configured to be charged or discharged; and a battery case that accommodates the power generating element in a hermetically sealed state. The controller is configured to control charging and discharging of the alkaline secondary battery, and, when an internal pressure of the alkaline secondary battery is higher than or equal to a first threshold, execute a heating process for heating the alkaline secondary battery by decreasing the internal pressure through discharging of the alkaline secondary battery. The heating process is a process of raising a temperature of the alkaline secondary battery (abstract). As shown in FIG. 2, each of the single cells 11 includes a power generating element 111 that is charged or discharged and a battery case 112 that accommodates the power generating element 111 in a hermetically sealed state. As shown in FIG. 3, the power generating element 111 includes a positive electrode plate 111a, a negative electrode plate 111b and a separator 111c arranged between the positive electrode plate 111a and the negative electrode plate 111b. The positive electrode plate 111a has a current collector and a positive electrode active material layer formed on the surface of the current collector. The negative electrode plate 111b has a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer formed on the surface of the current collector [0063]. As shown in FIG. 3, the positive electrode plate 111a, the negative electrode plate 111b and the separator 111c are laminated on top of each other, and the laminate is rolled. Thus, the power generating element 111 shown in FIG. 2 is formed. An electrolytic solution is osmosed in the separator 111c. Instead of the separator 111c, a fixed electrolyte layer may be used. A positive electrode terminal 113 is connected to the positive electrode plate 111a of the power generating element 111. A negative electrode terminal 114 is connected to the negative electrode plate 111b of the power generating element 111 [0064]- which reads on the required structure for the interface as claimed. With regards to the claimed – “wherein the gaps are caused by thermal contraction and volumetric contraction of the stacked structure when the temperature decreases and when the state of charge decreases,” as noted above, the “gaps caused by …” is considered a functional limitation and is not given patentable weight. Hettrich‘959 in view of Hettrich’252 and Minamiura in combination teach the increase/decrease in pressure affects the temperature which causes the gaps as claimed; i.e. as the temperature decreases and the state of charge decreases- the gaps are formed. It is the examiners position, the combination of the prior art cited is capable of causing gaps to be formed based on the contractions of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the structure of Minamiura disclosing the interfaces between the layers in the structure of Hettrich et al. motivated by the desire to create a battery structure that is less likely to combust.
Regarding claim 5, Hettrich’959 teaches wherein the all-solid-state battery (200, Fig.2) includes a stacked structure (212, Fig. 2 in a stacked orientation; see [0026 and 0028]); the stacked structure includes a positive electrode (see [0028]), a negative electrode (see [0028]), and the solid electrolyte (see [0028]) sandwiched between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (solid electrolyte between and in contact with, hence “sandwiched between”, the positive and negative electrode, see [0028]), but does not specifically teach for the embodiment of Fig. 2 to have a packaging material, the packaging material having flexibility and sealing the stacked structure.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches in an embodiment a packaging material (flexible pouch, see [0069]), the packaging material having flexibility (see [0041]) and sealing the stacked structure (electrochemical stacks sealed within flexible pouch, see [0041]).
It would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hettrich‘959 such that the electrochemical stack include a packaging material having flexibility and sealing the stacked structure as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to allow for isostatic pressurization of the battery via the compressible fluid. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Hettrich‘959 does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein: the processor is configured to increase the pressure in a continuous or stepwise manner, as the state-of-charge of the all-solid-state battery decreases.
However, Hettrich’959 further teaches a processor (see [0035]) configured to increase the pressure in response to a sensed condition (see [0147, 0169] where pressure is increased in response to a sensed condition), such as a decreased state-of-charge of the all-solid-state battery (see [0076] where pressure management is performed to maintain pressure uniformity as a battery is charged from a discharged state). Hettrich’959 further teaches that “management of battery pressure is related to a ratio for expansion:compression of the battery cell”, that this volumetric expansion is coupled to the state of charge of the battery with volume decrease during discharge, and that “[a]ccomodating the increase in the volume of the battery upon charge is important to battery design, and the management of the inherent pressure(s) involved upon such battery volume increases is desirable, for example, in extending the lifetime of the battery” [0076].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the processor to increase the pressure as the state of charge of the all-solid-state battery decreases since Hettrich’959 teaches to control the pressure to account for the volumetric decrease that occurs as state of charge is reduced since Hettrich’959 expressly teaches managing the pressure to accommodate volume changes, and pressure and volume are inversely proportional characteristics.
Hettrich’959 is silent as to whether this pressure management would be performed in a continuous or step-wise manner; however, as Hettrich’959 does teach increasing the pressure, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the processor to increase the pressure in either a continuous or stepwise manner, as those are the typical ways in which one could increase the pressure, as any cessation of the continuous increase would cause a stepwise increase.
Regarding claim 11, Hettrich‘959 does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein: the processor is configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where heavy-load discharge of the all-solid-state battery is predicted on a basis of external information.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches a processor (see [0035]) configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where heavy-load discharge of the all-solid-state battery is predicted on a basis of external information (see [0173] where a drive, i.e., a discharge event for a battery, is predicted on a basis of information from external devices, i.e., external information, such as weather and forecast information, and pre-pressurization occurs).
It would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hettrich‘959 such that the processor is configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where heavy-load discharge of the all-solid-state battery is predicted on a basis of external information as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to avoid cell power limitation at lower pressures. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Hettrich‘959 does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein: the processor is configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where the all-solid-state battery is predicted to switch from a charging state to a discharging state on a basis of external information.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches a processor (see [0035]) configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where the all-solid-state battery is predicted to switch from a charging state to a discharging state on a basis of external information (see [0154] where pre-pressurization threshold for a predicted performance requirement, which may preliminarily increase pressure as shown in [0173], is determined from inputs including whether the battery is currently being externally charged, hence, the battery could be predicted to switch from a charging state to a discharging state).
It would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hettrich‘959 such that the processor is configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where the all-solid-state battery is predicted to switch from a charging state to a discharging state on a basis of external information as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to appropriately pressurize the battery to a desired pressure in time for an expected drive. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Hettrich‘959 does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein: the processor is configured to apply additional pressure to the all-solid-state battery in accordance with a degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches a processor (processor, see [0035]) configured to apply additional pressure to the all-solid-state battery in accordance with a degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte (see [0147] where processor applies increased, i.e., additional, pressure to maintain the structural integrity of battery components, in particular the solid electrolyte, based off a state-of-health calculation and comparison values, including area-specific resistance [0079]; see [0171] where state-of-health is dependent on area-specific resistance, which is dependent on contact between the cathode and solid electrolyte). While Hettrich’959 is silent as to the term “degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte”, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that contact between the cathode and solid electrolyte is dependent on deterioration of the solid electrolyte, therefore, applying increased pressure based off area-specific resistance would also be in accordance with a degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hettrich‘959 such that the processor is configured to apply additional pressure to the all-solid-state battery in accordance with a degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to economize energy use and battery health. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Hettrich‘959 does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein: the processor is configured to control the magnitude of the pressure to be applied to the all-solid-state battery, on a basis of an internal resistance value of the all-solid-state battery.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches a processor (see [0035]) configured to control the magnitude of the pressure to be applied to the all-solid-state battery, on a basis of an internal resistance value of the all-solid-state battery (see [0171] where processor increases or decreases, i.e., controls the magnitude of, the pressure of a battery specifically to reduce area-specific resistance (ASR), a form of internal resistance within a battery (see [0084])).
It would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hettrich‘959 such that the processor is to control the magnitude of the pressure to be applied to the all-solid-state battery, on a basis of an internal resistance value of the all-solid-state battery as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to economize energy use and battery health. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Hettrich‘959 does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2, further comprising: a heater configured to heat the fluid.
However, Hettrich’252 teaches a heater (heater 504, Fig. 5B) configured to heat the fluid (heater 504 heats heat transfer fluid, see [0078]).
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 by adding a heater, configured to heat the fluid, taught by Hettrich’252 to heat the battery without any thermal energy loss to a combustion engine or external heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 3, Hettrich’959 does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2, further comprising: a cooler configured to cool the fluid.
However, Hettrich’252 teaches a cooler (heat exchanger 1011, Fig. 10B) configured to cool the fluid (thermal fluid typically has the lowest temperature immediately after flowing through heat exchanger 1011, therefore, heat exchanger 1011 cools the fluid, see [0083]).
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 by adding the heat exchanger taught by Hettrich’252 to maximize the effectiveness of the cooling system.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hettrich’959 and Hettrich’252, as applied to claim 2 above, does not specifically teach the embodiment of Fig. 2 in Hettrich’959, further comprising: a cooler configured to cool the fluid.
However, Hettrich’252 teaches a cooler (heat exchanger 1011, Fig. 10B) configured to cool the fluid (thermal fluid typically has the lowest temperature immediately after flowing through heat exchanger 1011, therefore, heat exchanger 1011 cools the fluid, see [0083]).
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 by adding the heat exchanger taught by Hettrich’252 to maximize the effectiveness of the cooling system.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hettrich’959 and Hettrich’252 teaches that the all-solid-state battery (200, Fig.2) includes a stacked structure (212, Fig. 2 in a stacked orientation; see [0026 and 0028]); the stacked structure includes a positive electrode (see [0028]), a negative electrode (see [0028]), and the solid electrolyte (see [0028]) sandwiched between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (solid electrolyte between and in contact with, hence “sandwiched between”, the positive and negative electrode, see [0028]), but does not specifically teach for the embodiment of Fig. 2 to have a packaging material, the packaging material having flexibility and sealing the stacked structure.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches in an embodiment a packaging material (flexible pouch, see [0069]), the packaging material having flexibility (see [0041]) and sealing the stacked structure (electrochemical stacks sealed within flexible pouch, see [0041]).
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 such that the electrochemical stack include a packaging material having flexibility and sealing the stacked structure as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to allow for isostatic pressurization of the battery via the compressible fluid. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hettrich’959 and Hettrich’252 does not teach wherein: the processor is configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where heavy-load discharge of the all-solid-state battery is predicted on a basis of external information.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches a processor (see [0035]) configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where heavy-load discharge of the all-solid-state battery is predicted on a basis of external information (see [0173] where a drive, i.e., a discharge event for a battery, is predicted on a basis of information from external devices, i.e., external information, such as weather and forecast information, and pre-pressurization occurs).
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 such that the processor is configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where heavy-load discharge of the all-solid-state battery is predicted on a basis of external information as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to avoid cell power limitation at lower pressures.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hettrich’959 and Hettrich’252 does not teach wherein: the processor is configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where the all-solid-state battery is predicted to switch from a charging state to a discharging state on a basis of external information.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches a processor (see [0035]) configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where the all-solid-state battery is predicted to switch from a charging state to a discharging state on a basis of external information (see [0154] where pre-pressurization threshold for a predicted performance requirement, which may preliminarily increase pressure as shown in [0173], is determined from inputs including whether the battery is currently being externally charged, hence, the battery could be predicted to switch from a charging state to a discharging state).
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 such that the processor is configured to perform pre-pressurization of preliminary increasing the pressure, in a case where the all-solid-state battery is predicted to switch from a charging state to a discharging state on a basis of external information as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to appropriately pressurize the battery to a desired pressure in time for an expected drive.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hettrich’959 and Hettrich’252 does not teach wherein: the processor is configured to apply additional pressure to the all-solid-state battery in accordance with a degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches a processor (processor, see [0035]) configured to apply additional pressure to the all-solid-state battery in accordance with a degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte (see [0147] where processor applies increased, i.e., additional, pressure to maintain the structural integrity of battery components, in particular the solid electrolyte, based off a state-of-health calculation and comparison values, including area-specific resistance [0079]; see [0171] where state-of-health is dependent on area-specific resistance, which is dependent on contact between the cathode and solid electrolyte). While Hettrich’959 is silent as to the term “degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte”, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that contact between the cathode and solid electrolyte is dependent on deterioration of the solid electrolyte, therefore, applying increased pressure based off area-specific resistance would also be in accordance with a degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 such that the processor is configured to apply additional pressure to the all-solid-state battery in accordance with a degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to economize energy use and battery health.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Hettrich’959 and Hettrich’252 does not teach wherein: the processor is configured to control the magnitude of the pressure to be applied to the all-solid-state battery, on a basis of an internal resistance value of the all-solid-state battery.
However, Hettrich’959 teaches a processor (see [0035]) configured to control the magnitude of the pressure to be applied to the all-solid-state battery, on a basis of an internal resistance value of the all-solid-state battery (see [0171] where processor increases or decreases, i.e., controls the magnitude of, the pressure of a battery specifically to reduce area-specific resistance (ASR), a form of internal resistance within a battery (see [0084])).
It would have been obvious to modify the device taught by Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 such that the processor is to control the magnitude of the pressure to be applied to the all-solid-state battery, on a basis of an internal resistance value of the all-solid-state battery as taught by Hettrich ‘959 to economize energy use and battery health.
Regarding claim 24, as noted above in claim 1; the following limitation : “wherein reducing the gaps provides a sufficient movement path for charged elements through the interfaces between the components of the all-solid-state battery;” this is considered a functional limitation and is not given patentable weight, because the gaps are reduced or formed based on how the structure operates. Patentable weight is given to the structure, and Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 further in view of Minamiura teach the required structure of the battery control system [please refer to claim 1]. It is the examiners position, the combination of the cited references is capable of reducing the gaps based on the movement path for the charged elements through the interface between the components of the battery.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettrich’959 (US 20200168959 A1) in view of Hettrich’252 (US 20190263252 A1) and Minamiura (US 2016/0149275) and further in view of Takahashi (US 20160131719 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Hettrich‘959 teaches wherein: the processor (see [0035]) is configured to determine the state-of-health of the solid-state battery, on a basis of accumulated operating time of the all-solid-state battery or degree-of-deterioration estimation data (see [0168] where processor calculates state-of-health from reference comparison values including calendar life and historical use of the battery, i.e., accumulated operating time).
Hettrich’959 does not appear to teach wherein: the processor is configured to determine the degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte, on a basis of accumulated operating time of the all-solid-state battery or degree-of-deterioration estimation data.
However, Takahashi teaches the state-of-health is defined by “the combination of states of deterioration of respective components of the secondary battery”, including an electrolyte thereof [0008].
It would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hettrich’959 as described in claim 15 above such that the processor is configured to determine the degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte of the battery, on a basis of accumulated operating time of the all-solid-state battery or degree-of-deterioration estimation data, since Takahashi teaches the state-of-health is defined by the deterioration of a secondary battery electrolyte and Hettrich’959 teaches calculating the state-of-health on a basis of accumulated operating time or degree-of-deterioration estimation data.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 teaches wherein: the processor (see [0035]) is configured to determine the state-of-health of the solid-state battery, on a basis of accumulated operating time of the all-solid-state battery or degree-of-deterioration estimation data (see [0168] where processor calculates state-of-health from reference comparison values including calendar life and historical use of the battery, i.e., accumulated operating time).
The combination of Hettrich‘959 and Hettrich’252 does not specifically teach wherein: the processor is configured to determine the degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte, on a basis of accumulated operating time of the all-solid-state battery or degree-of-deterioration estimation data.
However, Takahashi teaches the state-of-health is defined by “the combination of states of deterioration of respective components of the secondary battery”, including an electrolyte thereof [0008].
It would have been obvious to modify the device of Hettrich’959 and Hettrich’252 as described in claim 16 above such that the processor is configured to determine the degree of deterioration of the solid electrolyte of the battery, on a basis of accumulated operating time of the all-solid-state battery or degree-of-deterioration estimation data, since Takahashi teaches the state-of-health is defined by the deterioration of a secondary battery electrolyte and Hettrich’959 teaches calculating the state-of-health on a basis of accumulated operating time or degree-of-deterioration estimation data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729