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 Appeal Brief
As of the time of the filing of the Appeal Brief on 1/20/2026, claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, and 17-23 remain pending in the application, and claims 4, 12, and 16 have been canceled. Applicant’s arguments submitted in the Appeal Brief have overcome every 103 rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 7/16/2025. New grounds of rejection are presented below. This action is made Non-Final.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 13-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose (US 20150134172 A1), in view of CALeVIP (“EV Charging Basics” https://calevip.org/electric-vehicle-charging-101 > Posted online April 30, 2018).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ose teaches a battery charging system (Fig. 1: 100), comprising:
a battery array (Fig. 1: multiple solid state batteries 10);
a compression device (7+8+9+13+14, including both in the vehicle and the exterior charging under pressure device) configured to apply a compression force to the battery array during a charging event (¶0040: “The charging system 100 allows charging and discharging of all-solid-state batteries 10 while pressing with a prescribed, confining force”); and
a control module (¶0049: pressure control section 6) programmed to control the compression device to apply a first compression force (¶0061: pressure that is applied on the battery inside the vehicle for charging by regenerative braking while the vehicle is operated) and to apply a second, different compression force (¶0061 and Fig. 3: pressing the battery with a greater pressure using an “exterior charging under pressure device” allows rapid charging capacity to be further increased) (The examiner interprets “control module programmed to control the compression device … to apply a second compression force” recited in the instant application as the pressure control section 6 in the charging system 100 sending a signal-relating to the confining pressure of the all-solid-state battery to an exterior charging under pressure device via a communicator as recited in Ose, ¶0059).
Ose does not explicitly teach the control module controlling the compression device to apply a first compression force during a low charging rate condition and a second, different compression force during a high charging rate condition.
However, Ose teaches compression being applied during rapid charging (¶[36]: rapid charging capacity of an all-solid-state battery is more greatly improved with higher confining pressure). Ose further teaches alleviating stress on the battery to minimize short-circuiting between the positive and negative electrodes by lowering the confining pressure (¶[37]). A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have considered minimizing damage to the battery when rapid charging is not necessary such as Level 1 charging. Level 1 charging uses charging rates lower than rapid charging or DC fast charging as is evidenced by CALeVIP.
Ose does not explicitly teach Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging.
CALeVIP teaches Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging of CALeVIP into Ose to allow the user to prioritize charging based on speed, cost, and availability of charging power such as at a charging station or at a home.
Based on alleviating stress on a battery, as taught in Ose, a compression force of zero would be employed to the battery during Level 1 charging so there is no stress to the battery. The examiner interprets the compression force of zero during Level 1 charging as the first compression force, and the compression force during rapid charging as the second, different compression force.
Regarding claim 2, Ose teaches the increasing compression rates at different levels of power transfer while charging the battery. The examiner interprets the lower level as the recited “Level 1” charging condition and also interprets the higher level as the recited “DC fast charging condition”
It should be noted the Specification doesn’t provide a specific meaning to the recited terms “Level 1,” “Level 2,” or “DC charging condition” that would preclude the interpretation afforded by the examiner presented above. It appears the terms are used as identifier labels for both charging conditions. Thus, given the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets both recited conditions as identifiers for the low and high charging rates.
Regarding claim 3, Ose teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, wherein, the second, different compression force (¶[36]: compression force during rapid charging) is a larger or smaller compression force than the first compression force (compression force of zero).
Regarding claim 10, Ose teach the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, wherein Ose further teaches the control module (¶0039: 6) is a component of an electrified vehicle (¶0038: “mounted in a vehicle”) that includes the battery charging system (¶0039: 100).
Regarding independent claim 13, Ose teaches a method, comprising:
varying a compression force applied to a battery array of a traction battery pack during a charging event (¶0061: pressure that is applied on the battery inside the vehicle for charging by regenerative braking while the vehicle is operated) (¶0061 and Fig. 3: pressing the battery with a greater pressure using an “exterior charging under pressure device” allows rapid charging capacity to be further increased),
Ose does not teach varying the compression force includes applying a first compression force during a low charging rate condition and a second, different compression force during a high charging rate condition.
However, Ose teaches compression being applied during rapid charging (¶[36]: rapid charging capacity of an all-solid-state battery is more greatly improved with higher confining pressure). Ose further teaches alleviating stress on the battery to minimize short-circuiting between the positive and negative electrodes by lowering the confining pressure (¶[37]). A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have considered minimizing damage to the battery when rapid charging is not necessary such as Level 1 charging. Level 1 charging uses charging rates lower than rapid charging or DC fast charging as is evidenced by CALeVIP.
Ose does not explicitly teach Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging.
CALeVIP teaches Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging of CALeVIP into Ose to allow the user to prioritize charging based on speed, cost, and availability of charging power such as at a charging station or at a home.
Based on alleviating stress on a battery, as taught in Ose, a compression force of zero would be employed to the battery during Level 1 charging so there is no stress to the battery.
Regarding claim 14, Ose teaches the increasing compression rates at different levels of power transfer while charging the battery. The examiner interprets the lower level as the recited “Level 1” charging condition and also interprets the higher level as the recited “DC fast charging condition”
It should be noted the Specification doesn’t provide a specific meaning/definition for the recited terms “Level 1,” “Level 2,” or “DC charging condition” that would preclude the interpretation afforded above by the examiner. It appears the terms are used as identifier labels for both charging conditions. Thus, given the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets both recited conditions as identifiers for the low and high charging rates.
Regarding claim 15, Ose teaches the method as recited in claim 13, wherein the second, different compression force (¶[36]: compression force during rapid charging) is a larger or smaller compression force than the first compression force (compression force of zero when Level 1 charging).
Regarding claim 21, Ose teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, wherein Ose teaches the battery array includes a cell stack that includes a plurality of lithium-ion battery cells (¶0091-0092: solid state batteries 10 comprise of lithium-ion), and further wherein the compression device is positioned between a support structure of the battery array and the cell stack (Figs. 1-3 and abstract: The examiner interprets that the compression device of Ose operates within a support structure, the vehicle, and is therefore placed between the battery array, which the device compresses, and the support structure).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose in view of CALeVIP, and further in view of Inukai (US 20010012917 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ose teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Ose does not teach wherein the compression device includes an air bladder.
Inukai teaches a compression device that includes an air bladder (Fig. 1 and ¶0025: 10a).
Ose and Inukai all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the air bladder compression device in Inukai for the compression device in Ose to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Regarding claim 17, Ose teaches the method as recited in claim 13.
Ose does not teach wherein the compression force includes inflating or deflating an air bladder of a compression device.
Inukai teaches a compression force includes inflating or deflating an air bladder of a compression device (Fig. 1 and ¶0025: 10a).
Ose and Inukai all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the air bladder compression device in Inukai for the compression device in Ose to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose in view of CALeVIP, and further in view of Cunningham (US 20090013882 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ose teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1. Ose does not teach wherein the compression device includes an air cylinder or a hydraulic cylinder.
Cunningham teaches a compression device that includes an air cylinder or a hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 1 and ¶0033: 12).
Ose and Cunningham all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the hydraulic cylinder compression device in Cunningham for the compression device in Ose to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Regarding claim 18, Ose teaches the method as recited in claim 13.
Ose does not teach wherein varying the compression force includes extending or retracting a piston of an air cylinder or a hydraulic cylinder of a compression device.
Cunningham teaches varying the compression force includes extending or retracting a piston of an air cylinder or a hydraulic cylinder of a compression device (Fig. 1 and ¶0033: 12).
Ose and Cunningham all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the hydraulic cylinder compression device in Cunningham for the compression device in Ose to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose in view of CALeVIP, and further in view of Tracy (US Patent 5001977 A, Published Mar. 26, 1991).
Regarding claim 7, Ose teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Ose does not teach the compression device includes a motor actuated threaded shaft rod.
Tracy teaches a compression device that includes a motor actuated threaded shaft rod (Fig. 1 and 2 and Col 4, lines 43-48: motor 9 and actuated threaded rod screw drive 8).
Ose, and Tracy all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motor actuated threaded shaft rod compression device in Tracy for the compression device in Ose to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Regarding claim 19, Ose teaches the method as recited in claim 13.
Ose do not teach wherein varying the compression force includes rotating a screw shaft rod of a compression device.
Tracy teaches varying the compression force includes rotating a screw shaft rod of a compression device (Fig. 1 and 2 and Col 4, lines 43-48: motor 9 and actuated threaded rod screw drive 8).
Ose, and Tracy all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motor actuated threaded shaft rod compression device in Tracy for the compression device in Ose to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose in view of CALeVIP, and further in view of Bekkedahl (US PG Pub 20040081866 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ose teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Ose does not teach the compression device includes a shape memory alloy structure.
Bekkedahl teaches a compression device that includes a shape memory alloy structure (¶0029 and Fig. 12: tension springs comprised of a shape memory alloy).
Ose and Bekkedahl all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the shape memory alloy structure compression device in Bekkedahl for the compression device in Ose to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Regarding claim 20, Ose teach the method as recited in claim 13.
Ose does not teach wherein varying the compression force includes altering a shape of a shape memory alloy structure of a compression device.
Bekkedahl teaches varying the compression force includes altering a shape of a shape memory alloy structure of a compression device (¶0029 and Fig. 12: tension springs comprised of a shape memory alloy).
Ose and Bekkedahl all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the shape memory alloy structure compression device in Bekkedahl for the compression device in Ose to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose in view of CALeVIP, and further in view of Payne (US 20150274028 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ose teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Ose does not explicitly teach the system comprising a sensor system operably coupled to the control module and configured to monitor a charge rate during the charging event.
Payne teaches the system comprising a sensor system operably coupled to the control module (Fig. 1: BMS 114 coupled to CPU 106) and configured to monitor a charge rate during the charging event (¶[25]: BMS 14 includes equipment to determine charge rate of the battery 104).
Ose and Payne teach the charging of batteries of electric vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the charge rate measuring system of Payne into the system of Ose to help calculate remaining time to complete charging of the battery.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose in view of CALeVIP, and further in view of Bernhardt (US 20210347266 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Ose teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Ose does not teach the compression device is controlled to apply the first compression force and the second, different compression force during different time periods of the same charging event.
Bernhardt teaches a compression device controlled to apply a first compression force and a second, different compression force during different time periods of the same charging event (¶0018 and 0041: During the charging cycle of a lithium battery, dynamic or variable compression rates are applied on energy pack 304 to inhibit formation of moss or dendrites. First spring unit 302a imparts a first force and second spring unit 302b imparts a second force on the energy pack).
Ose and Bernhardt teach the charging of batteries under compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate variable compression on batteries in the system of Bernhardt into the system of Ose, modified, to prevent moss or dendrite formation.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ose in view of CALeVIP, Bernhardt, and Inukai.
Regarding independent claim 23, Ose teaches a battery charging system (Fig. 1: 100), comprising:
a battery array (Fig. 1: multiple solid state batteries 10) including a cell stack that includes a plurality of lithium-on battery cells (¶0091-0092) and a support structure that surrounds the cell stack (abstract: vehicle); and
a compression device (7+8+9+13+14, including both in the vehicle and the exterior charging under pressure device) configured to apply a first compression force (¶0061: pressure that is applied on the battery inside the vehicle for charging by regenerative braking while the vehicle is operated) and to apply a second, different compression force (¶0061 and Fig. 3: pressing the battery with a greater pressure using an “exterior charging under pressure device” allows rapid charging capacity to be further increased) (The examiner interprets “control module programmed to control the compression device … to apply a second compression force” recited in the instant application as the pressure control section 6 in the charging system 100 sending a signal-relating to the confining pressure of the all-solid-state battery to an exterior charging under pressure device via a communicator as recited in Ose, ¶0059),
Although Ose teaches the control module is programmed to control the compression device to apply a first compression force and second compression force, Ose is silent about the control module controlling the compression device to apply a first compression force during a low charging rate condition of a charging event and a second, different compression force during a high charging rate condition of the charging event.
However, Ose teaches compression being applied during rapid charging (¶[36]: rapid charging capacity of an all-solid-state battery is more greatly improved with higher confining pressure). Ose further teaches alleviating stress on the battery to minimize short-circuiting between the positive and negative electrodes by lowering the confining pressure (¶[37]). A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have considered minimizing damage to the battery when rapid charging is not necessary such as Level 1 charging. Level 1 charging uses charging rates lower than rapid charging or DC fast charging as is evidenced by CALeVIP.
Ose does not explicitly teach Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging.
CALeVIP teaches Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the Level 1, Level 2, or DC fast charging of CALeVIP into Ose to allow the user to prioritize charging based on speed, cost, and availability of charging power such as at a charging station or at a home.
Based on alleviating stress on a battery, as taught in Ose, a compression force of zero would be employed to the battery during Level 1 charging so there is no stress to the battery. The examiner interprets the compression force of zero during Level 1 charging as the first compression force, and the compression force during rapid charging as the second, different compression force.
Ose does not teach that the first compression force and a second compression force are applied within the same charging event.
Bernhardt teaches a compression device controlled to apply a first compression force and a second, different compression force during different time periods of the same charging event (¶0018 and 0041: During the charging cycle of a lithium battery, dynamic or variable compression rates are applied on energy pack 304 to inhibit formation of moss or dendrites. First spring unit 302a imparts a first force and second spring unit 302b imparts a second force on the energy pack).
Ose, in view of Bernhardt teaches the charging of batteries under compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate variable compression on batteries in the system of Bernhardt into the system of Ose, modified, to prevent moss or dendrite formation.
Ose in view of Bernhardt do not teach the compression device includes an air bladder, an air cylinder, a hydraulic cylinder, or a shape memory alloy structure.
Inukai teaches a compression device that includes an air bladder (Fig. 1 and ¶0025: 10a).
Ose, Bernhardt, and Inukai all teach a device for compression. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the air bladder compression device in Inukai for the compression device in Ose, modified, to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery.
Ose teaches a compression device is positioned between the support structure and the cell stack (Figs. 1-3 and abstract: The examiner interprets that the compression device of Ose operates within a support structure, the vehicle, and is therefore placed between the battery array, which the device compresses, and the support structure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, closest prior art, Ose, teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Ose do not teach the control module is a component of an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) system.
Closest prior art, Tabatowski-Bush, teaches the control module (Fig. 2 and ¶0030: EVSE controller 94) is a component of an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) system (Fig. 2 and ¶0030: premise system 90) (The EVSE controller communicates with the vehicle).
Ose and Tabatowski-Bush all teach systems for charging batteries. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the positioning of the control module in the EVSE system in Tabatowski-Bush into the system of Ose to allow the EVSE to more easily control the charging power to the vehicle based on the vehicle’s needs.
Prior art of record as considered and understood by the examiner does not teach or fairly suggest:
wherein the first compression force and the second compression force are different forces and are each in the range of about 5 psi to about 15,000 psi,
taken in combination with the other limitations of claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryu-Sung Peter Weinmann whose telephone number is (703)756-5964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Julian Huffman, can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/Ryu-Sung P. Weinmann/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 February 13, 2026
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859