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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 5-7 and 16 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2, 5-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/133711 A1 hereinafter Asai.
Regarding Claim 2, Asai teaches in Figures 9-15 a variable battery pressure optimization system comprising:
a first plate (endplate) [3] having a first side and a second side, wherein the first side of the first plate is opposite from the second side of the first plate;
a second plate (endplate) [3] having a first side and a second side, wherein the first side of the second plate is opposite from the second side of the second plate; and
one or more planar pouch battery cells are configured to be installed between the second side of the first plate and the second side of the second plate (Asai discloses that the battery cells used in the present invention is not limited to a prismatic battery cell, but may be a laminated battery cell having a square shape in which a cylindrical battery cell or an exterior body is covered with a laminate material or another shape (e.g., a planar pouch battery cell)); and
a plurality of pressure application components (i.e., PJ1, PJ2, BJ1, BJ2, BJ3), wherein the plurality of the pressure application components is arranged in a two-dimensional pattern (i.e., two-dimensional pattern described using two coordinates [typically x and y]) (see annotated figure 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The change in form or shape (i.e., using a planar pouch battery cells), without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Asai teaches that the plurality of pressure application components (i.e., PJ1, PJ2, BJ1, BJ2, BJ3) are arranged in grid pattern (i.e., a structured arrangement of the components that form a repeating layout). Asai further teaches a method of arranging the components such that pressure is applied to the battery pack and the claimed arrangement pattern would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
As evidence by US 2019/0081372, components in the battery system (i.e., battery cells) can be arranged in a slanted, staggered or offset formation relative to one another and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such configuration can reduce overall volume of the battery block, minimize cell to cell spacing (e.g., without failure or degradation in performance), or to allow for an adequate number of vent ports (paragraphs 40, 58).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Asai teaches a plurality of pressure application components (i.e., PJ1, PJ2, BJ1, BJ2, BJ3) having cuboid parts (see figures 9-15) and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 16, Asai teaches that the unit cell is a lithium ion secondary battery and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to use a solid state battery before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for enhanced safety and stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
Claims 9-15 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest a variable planar pouch battery pressure system that further comprises a processing system in communication with the pressure generator; and an electrical characteristic sensor, wherein the pressure generator individually controls an amount of pressure applied by each of the pressure application components of the plurality of pressure application components to the first side of the first plate and the first side of the second plate; and wherein the electrical characteristic sensor measures resistance (see dependent claims 9-10). Dependent claims 11-15 are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights