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 .
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.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et. al. (US20190094003A1), in view of Pavlik, et. al. (US 20090123784 A1), McMaster-Carr, Easy-Install Slotted Washers, Published 10-20-2018 (https://www.mcmaster.com/products/split-spacers/washer-type~split/washer-type~slotted/easy-install-slotted-washers-1~~/), and Yamamoto, et. al. (US 20160036103 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches a method of measuring a volume of a battery cell, comprising interposing the battery cell in the battery cell jig according to claim 1 (see below), and measuring weights before and after a volume change of the battery cell, respectively (“[0078] The variable measurement member 124 may be interposed in the space between the variable base member 123 and the variable lower jig 122 . . . may measure the reaction force caused by the swelling of secondary battery C . . . [0114] Referring to FIG. 8, the deriving unit 130 may set a coordinate plane where the x-axis represents the thickness change amount of the secondary battery and the y-axis represents the reaction force of the secondary battery. Here, the x-axis may be in the unit of length, for example ‘mm’, and the y-axis may be in the unit of force or weight, for example ‘kgf’ [indicating that “measuring weights” is occurring].” ; the description of “T1” and T0 indicate the measurement before and after a volume change). Kim at [0078-80, 114-15], Fig. 4, 5, 8.
Kim does not teach the entirety of the battery cell jig as claimed in Claim 1, however. The following analysis covers the contents of Claim 1:
Kim teaches a battery cell jig (fixed jig 110) comprising: first and second plates (fixed upper jug 111, fixed lower jig 112 respectively); a bolt (bolts L) and a nut (nuts N) which fix the first and second plates in a state that a battery cell is interposed between the first and second plates. Kim at Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
301
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
235
316
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 and 5 of Kim.
However, Kim is silent as to a spacer laminate.
Pavlik teaches a bolt and nut assembly for fixing cathode plates 5 and anode plates 3 of a fuel cell, wherein plastic washers 8a are utilized to ensure the plates are “electrically isolated.” Pavlik at [0053]. Pavlik at least suggests via Fig. 1 and 2 that these washers provide the benefit of controlling the amount of compression upon the plates while ensuring a secure fit. Id. at Fig. 1 and 2.
PNG
media_image3.png
482
391
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
585
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 and 2 of Pavlik.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a laminate includes a material composed of plastic or having a layer of plastic or some other protective material, indicating that a plastic washer is a “spacer laminate.” Pavlik depicts eight washers within Fig. 2. Id. at Fig. 2.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify Kim such that its bolt is secured by the nonconductive washers of Pavlik, such that it comprises “a spacer laminate which is positioned between the first plate and the second plate to designate a separation distance, and comprises n spacers laminated and having a structure of surrounding a bolt, wherein n is an integer equal to or greater than 2,” because Pavlik teaches a benefit to electrical isolation while ensuring secure and safe compression.
However, modified Kim is silent as to a spacer laminate wherein each of the spacers includes a slit unit which is opened along a longitudinal direction of the spacer.
McMaster-Carr teaches an easy-install slotted washer, and teaches “Slip these washers under screw heads and nuts to quickly install them without having to disassemble your joint. They take the pressure off fasteners to protect mounting surfaces.” McMaster-Carr at p.1. However, McMaster-Carr teaches these washers are metal.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify the spacer laminates of modified Kim to comprise the slotted washers of McMaster-Carr, such that “each of the spacers includes a slit unit which is opened along a longitudinal direction of the spacer” because McMaster-Carr teaches a benefit to easy installation and protection of mounting surfaces.
Modified Kim is silent as to the height of the spacer laminate. Regarding the amended terms, “to maintain a distance between the first and second plates constant and to prevent from stagnating or gas from being filled at a space between the battery cell jig and the spacer when the measuring weights before and after the volume change of the battery cell,” a claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what is does rather than what it is. MPEP 2173.05(g). A functional limitation is appropriate so long as sufficient structure is presented to provide structural limits upon the functional limitation, and so long as it is commensurate in scope with and adequately supported by the written description. Id Here, this term is not specifically a step, because it follows “the battery cell jig comprising.” The accompanying structure is the spacer laminate and its height, and as previously noted within the Examiner Interview Summary Record of 05/21/2026, this is supported by pages 3-4 of the present Specification. However, as understood, this limitation requires the use of a spacer laminate to maintain a specific height relationship to the height of the battery cell, to prevent gas filling a space between the jig and the spacer.
Yamamoto teaches a battery cell stack structure, wherein the apparatus comprises and end plate 30, having a recessed portion 300; this recessed portion provides a path by which water which condensates is discharged out of the structure by way of the recessed portion, such that “water minimally stagnates in the recessed portion 30.” Yamamoto at [0152]. In addition, Yamamoto teaches “[0153] Also due to such a configuration, by arranging the energy storage apparatus in a posture where the penetration direction is equal to a horizontal direction or an approximately horizontal direction, and the region of the inner peripheral surface 351 formed of the inclined surface is at a lower portion, water which condensates on the inner peripheral surface 351 is discharged through the through hole 350 along the inclined surface of the lower portion at the inner peripheral surface 351 and hence, water minimally stagnates in the through hole 350 (inner peripheral surface 351 ).” Further, this indicates that certain recesses, slits, or cutouts create a path for water to flow, aided by gravity, out of the apparatus; further, that this is accomplished by ensuring a height, which includes any of the “directions,” correspond to each other, indicated by “equal to.” This also indicates the converse – that certain structures which create gaps, projections, or other obstacles trap liquid or prevent its flow. These teachings may be applied to the structure of modified Kim. However, Yamamoto does not teach an Archimedes volumetric measurement.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of modified Kim, such that “a height of the spacer laminate corresponds to a height of a battery cell to maintain a distance between the first and second plates constant and to prevent from stagnating or gas from being filled at a space between the battery cell jig and the spacer when the measuring weights before and after the volume change of the battery cell,” because Yamamoto teaches creating a recess or ensuring heights correspond to one another may prevent fluid from becoming trapped within the structure and stagnating, and teaches a benefit to ensuring “minimal stagnation.”
Claim 11 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Kim.
Modified Kim teaches a slit unit, but is silent as to the degree of the slit opened from a center of an axis. More specifically, when presented within McMaster-Carr, the slit forms an opening which is slightly angled but which is not specified within the reference.
PNG
media_image5.png
121
509
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Excerpt from p.1 of McMaster-Carr, previously attached with the Non-Final Action.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the method of modified Kim, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed would not perform differently from the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct. Here, the lower bound for the opening angle is 10 degrees, which presents a slit which would have a similarly narrow opening to that of the excerpt above; consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would not expect the two spacers to perform differently.
Claim 16 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Yamamoto.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Pavlik and McMaster-Carr, and further in view of Mendez, et. al. (US2019252722A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Kim.
Mendez teaches a method of conducting volume measurements, wherein “initial volume measurements carried out via Archimedes measurements in water at ambient temperature,” and “volume measurements after cycling were carried out via Archimedes measurements in water at ambient temperature.” Menendez at [0115 – 16]. Archimedes measurements are “ measuring the [an object] in the air, accommodating [an object] in a water tank where liquid has been accommodated, and measuring the weight of the battery cell jig in the liquid; and calculating a volume change amount of [an object] by Formula 1:
PNG
media_image6.png
49
131
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Formula 1, V denotes the volume change amount of [the object], W1 denotes a weight of the battery cell jig in the air, W2 denotes a weight of the [the object] accommodated in the liquid, and p denotes a density of the liquid.” To support this interpretation of Mendez’s disclosure, the instant specification at p. 22 describes the volume measurement as “measuring the volume of the battery cell using Archimedes principle.” Instant specification at [0010], p. 22. Mendez at least suggests this volume measurement provides the benefit of measuring volume while holding temperature constant in order to determine cycle characteristics. Id. at [0116], Table 4.
One of ordinary skill in the art effective filing date would find it obvious to further modify modified Kim with the Archimedes measurement of Mendez, because Mendez at least suggests a benefit to measuring volume of measuring volume while holding temperature constant in order to determine cycle characteristics.
Claim 12 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik and McMaster-Carr, and further in view of Mendez.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 12. Claim 12 is obvious over modified Kim.
Mendez teaches carrying out Archimedes temperatures measurement in water at ambient temperature. I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art before the effective filing date would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP 2144.01. Archimedes measurements rely upon the density of the liquid being utilized, and the density of water changes as temperature increases or decreases. As such, the disclosure of ambient temperature, which is taken to include room temperature or laboratory temperatures, necessarily implies a constant temperature, maintained by controlling the temperature of the water tank / receptacle. This includes cooling or heating. As such, modified Mendez teaches the liquid to a predetermined temperature during the measuring of the weight of the battery cell jig in the liquid.
Claim 14 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik and McMaster-Carr, and further in view of Mendez.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 14. Claim 14 is obvious over modified Kim.
Mendez teaches carrying out Archimedes temperatures measurement in water at ambient temperature. I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art before the effective filing date would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP 2144.01. Archimedes measurements rely upon the density of the liquid being utilized, and the density of water changes as temperature increases or decreases. This means the calculating of the volume change amount of the battery cell includes calculating a volume change of the battery cell according to a temperature of the liquid. Claim 15 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik and McMaster-Carr, and further in view of Mendez.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Mendez, further in view of Sano, et. al. (US 20130260226 A1)
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 12. Claim 12 is obvious over modified Kim.
Kim is silent as to charging during measuring. Kim teaches its cycling step includes discharging at a constant current of 0.2 C to a voltage of 3.0 V.
Sano teaches “[0070] Constant current-constant voltage charging of a cell was performed to 4.15 V with a current rate of 0.1 C. An amount of gas generation in a charging state was acquired by the following method. In measurement of the amount of gas generation, Archimedes method was used. In detail, a cell was dropped in pure water, buoyance was measured, and an amount of gas generation was acquired from volume of the pushed water.” This reads upon “charging the battery cell during the measuring of the weight of the battery cell jig in the liquid.” Sano teaches a benefit to measuring “gas generation in a charging state.” Taken together with Kim’s disclosure of discharge measurement cycling, this also provides a suggestion that gas generation could be measured during discharge.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to further modify modified Kim with the Archimedes measurement of Sano, because Sano at least suggests a benefit to measuring volume of measuring volume while charging or discharging.
Claim 13 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Mendez, further in view of Sano.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Yamamoto, as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Struik, et. al. Bolt Tension Control with a Direct Tension Indicator, Engineering Journal 10.1 (1973): 1-5.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Kim.
Modified Kim is silent as to a protrusion or indentation portion.
Struik teaches a coronet load indicator, or a direct tension indicator (hereinafter, “DTI” will be used for later discussion), presents a spacer wherein one end of the spacer has a protrusion or an indentation portion which has a central region which has been protruded or indented in a stepped structure, and wherein other end of the spacer has a protrusion or an indentation portion which has a central region which has been protruded or indented in a stepped structure. Struik at p.1, Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image7.png
291
289
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Struik.
A DTI provides a benefit to visual inspection, wherein “upon tightening, the protrusions are flattened and the gap is reduced . . . bolt tension is evaluated from measurements of the residual gap.” This indicates a similarly situated spacer having such protrusions would allow for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to inspect the measurements and determine the tensioning of a jig apparatus.
PNG
media_image8.png
363
707
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 and 3 of Struik.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to further modify the method of modified Kim, such that it comprises a spacer wherein one end of the spacer has a protrusion or an indentation portion which has a central region which has been protruded or indented in a stepped structure, and wherein other end of the spacer has a protrusion or an indentation portion which has a central region which has been protruded or indented in a stepped structure, in this case having the DTIs of Struik, because Struik teaches a benefit to inspecting bolt tension.
Claim 17 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Yamamoto, as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Struik.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Kim.
Pavlik teaches a series of laminated spacers, which represent a kth spacer (the first spacer) and a second spacer (the k+1th spacer). Pavlik at Fig. 1-2.
Struik teaches a spacer wherein DTIs present protruding portions which are used in inspect bolt tension. Struik at Fig. 1.
Here, “corresponding,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require two devices to interlock, and would include a series of washers having protruding portions in alignment with one another.
Modified Kim teaches one end of a kth spacer has a protrusion or an indentation portion, and the other end of a (k+1)th spacer has an indentation portion or a protrusion corresponding to the protrusion or the indentation portion of the kth spacer, and wherein k is an integer equal to or greater than 1 and equal to or less than n-1.
Claim 18 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Yamamoto, as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Struik.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Kim.
Struik teaches a spacer wherein DTIs present protruding portions which are used in inspect bolt tension. Struik at Fig. 1.
Modified Kim teaches one end of the spacer has a bump or a groove, and wherein the other end of the spacer has a groove or a bump.
Claim 19 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Yamamoto, as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Struik.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Kim.
Pavlik teaches a series of laminated spacers, which represent a kth spacer (the first spacer) and a second spacer (the k+1th spacer). Pavlik at Fig. 1-2.
Struik teaches a spacer wherein DTIs present protruding portions which are used in inspect bolt tension. Struik at Fig. 1.
Yamamoto teaches a battery cell stack structure, wherein the apparatus comprises and end plate 30, having a recessed portion 300; this recessed portion provides a path by which water which condensates is discharged out of the structure by way of the recessed portion, such that “water minimally stagnates in the recessed portion 30.” Yamamoto at [0152]. In addition, Yamamoto teaches “[0153] Also due to such a configuration, by arranging the energy storage apparatus in a posture where the penetration direction is equal to a horizontal direction or an approximately horizontal direction, and the region of the inner peripheral surface 351 formed of the inclined surface is at a lower portion, water which condensates on the inner peripheral surface 351 is discharged through the through hole 350 along the inclined surface of the lower portion at the inner peripheral surface 351 and hence, water minimally stagnates in the through hole 350 (inner peripheral surface 351 ).” Further, this indicates that certain recesses, slits, or cutouts create a path for water to flow, aided by gravity, out of the apparatus; further, that this is accomplished by ensuring a height, which includes any of the “directions,” correspond to each other, indicated by “equal to.” This also indicates the height is a result effective variable, which can be modified to achieve the desired flow path for water, fluid, or condensate buildup.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the method of Kim, such that it comprises the use of a jig wherein each of the n spacer has different heights from each other, because the height of a washer or spacer is a result effective variable which would be modified to arrive at the claimed height as a matter of routine optimization to achieve the desired to achieve the desired flow path for water, fluid, or condensate buildup.
Claim 20 is obvious over Kim, in view of Pavlik, McMaster-Carr, and Yamamoto, as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of Struik.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights