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
The Amendment filed 6/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 17, 19 and 21-23 remain pending in the application along with added new claims 24-25, and claims 4, 12, 16, 18, and 20 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/3/2026. The new grounds of rejection are presented below. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 13-15, 17, 19 and 21-23 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 13, 15, 22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montambault et al. (WO 2021226705 A1, citations are given from PGPub US 20230216322 A1, which is considered by the examiner as an English translation of the foreign reference).
Regarding independent claim 1, Montambault teaches a battery charging system (Figs. 1-10), comprising: a battery array (cells 2); a compression device configured to apply a compression force to the battery array during a charging event (clamping arrangement 8); and a control module (processing unit 38) programmed to control the compression device to apply a first compression force during a low charging rate condition and to apply a second, different compression force during a high charging rate condition (Fig. 11B and ¶[33]: processing unit 38 coordinates increase of pressure applied to cell 2 as a function of the increase of the charge rate. Low and high charge rates are interpreted by the examiner as lower or higher charge rates in this system).
Regarding claim 3, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, wherein the second, different compression force is a larger or smaller compression force than the first compression force (Fig. 11B and ¶[33]: processing unit 38 coordinates increase of pressure applied to cell 2 as a function of the increase of the charge rate. Low and high charge rates are interpreted by the examiner as lower or higher charge rates in this system, which respectively correspond to lower and higher compression forces).
Regarding claim 6, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, wherein the compression device includes an air cylinder or a hydraulic cylinder (¶[36] and Fig. 2: actuator 22 may be embodied by a hydraulic jack).
Regarding claim 9, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, comprising a sensor system operably coupled to the control module and configured to monitor a charge rate during the charging event (¶[43] and Fig. 1: measurements such as current voltage, and time are performed via cycling module 30, processing unit 38, and interface 40).
Regarding independent claim 13, Montambault teaches a method, comprising: varying a compression force applied to a battery array of a traction battery pack during a charging event, wherein varying the compression force includes applying a first compression force during a low charging rate condition and applying a second, different compression force during a high charging rate condition (Fig. 11B and ¶[33]: processing unit 38 coordinates increase of pressure applied to cell 2 as a function of the increase of the charge rate. Low and high charge rates are interpreted by the examiner as lower or higher charge rates in this system).
Regarding claim 15, Montambault teaches the method as recited in claim 13, wherein the second, different compression force is a larger or smaller compression force than the first compression force (Fig. 11B and ¶[33]: processing unit 38 coordinates increase of pressure applied to cell 2 as a function of the increase of the charge rate. Low and high charge rates are interpreted by the examiner as lower or higher charge rates in this system, which respectively correspond to lower and higher compression forces).
Regarding claim 22, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, wherein 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 (Fig. 11A and ¶[32]: pressure is increased cycle to cycle).
Regarding claim 24, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, wherein the first compression force and the second, different compression force are each greater than zero (Fig. 11B).
Regarding claim 25, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, comprising: a sensor system configured to generate a signal indicative of a charge rate being used during the charging event (¶[43] and Fig. 1: measurements such as current voltage, and time are performed via cycling module 30, processing unit 38, and interface 40); wherein the control module includes a processor and a memory storing one or more look- up tables that associate charge rate conditions with corresponding compression force values; and wherein the control module is further programmed to, in response to receiving the signal from the sensor system, access the one or more look-up tables to determine an appropriate compression force for the charge rate condition, control the compression device to apply the appropriate compression force to the battery array, and continuously update the compression force as the charge rate indicated by the signal changes (¶[31]: current and pressure are monitored and controlled based on desired charging speed).
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 10, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montambault.
Regarding claim 10, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Montambault does not explicitly teach wherein the control module is a component of an electrified vehicle that includes the battery charging system.
Montambault discloses the need for increasing the range of an electric vehicle (¶[3-4]).
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 controller of the system of Montambault into an electric vehicle to increase the driving range of the electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 21, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, wherein the compression device is positioned between a support structure of the battery array and the cell stack (Figs. 2-8 ¶[27-28]: clamping arrangement 8 has lower and upper jaws 10, 12 between which the supports 4 and housing battery cells 2 are insertable. Pressure is exerted on surfaces of pressure transmission plates 42 extending between two supports 4).
Montambault does not explicitly teach the battery array includes a cell stack that includes a plurality of lithium-ion battery cells.
Montambault describes the trending use of solid state batteries, some of them of the Li-ion type (¶[4]).
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 Li-ion solid state batteries into the system of Montambault for the high energy density properties of Li-ion batteries. It has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding independent claim 23, Montambault teaches a battery charging system (Figs. 1-10), comprising: a battery array (cells 2) (Figs. 2-8 ¶[27-28]: clamping arrangement 8 has lower and upper jaws 10, 12 between which the supports 4 and housing battery cells 2 are insertable. Pressure is exerted on surfaces of pressure transmission plates 42 extending between two supports 4); and a compression device (clamping arrangement 8) configured to apply a first compression force during a low charging rate condition of a charging event and to apply a second, different compression force during a high charging rate condition of the charging event (Fig. 11B and ¶[33]: processing unit 38 coordinates increase of pressure applied to cell 2 as a function of the increase of the charge rate. Low and high charge rates are interpreted by the examiner as lower or higher charge rates in this system),wherein the compression device includes an air bladder (alt), an air cylinder (alt), a hydraulic cylinder (¶[36] and Fig. 2: actuator 22 may be embodied by a hydraulic jack), or a shape memory alloy structure (alt) that is positioned between the support structure and the cell stack (Fig. 2 and ¶[35, 38]: support 4 houses each cell and receives guiding rods 44 and pressure from jaws 10, 12).
Montambault does not expressly disclose the cell stack including a plurality of lithium ion battery cells.
Montambault describes the trending use of solid state batteries, some of them of the Li-ion type (¶[4]).
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 Li-ion solid state batteries into the system of Montambault for the high energy density properties of Li-ion batteries. It has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montambault in view of CALeVIP (“EV Charging Basics” https://calevip.org/electric-vehicle-charging-101 > Posted online April 30, 2018)
Regarding claim 2, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Montambault 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 Montambault to allow prioritization of charging based on speed, cost, and availability of charging power such as at a charging station or at a home.
Regarding claim 14, Montambault teaches the method as recited in claim 13.
Montambault 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 Montambault to allow prioritization of charging based on speed, cost, and availability of charging power such as at a charging station or at a home.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montambault in view of Inukai (US 20010012917 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Montambault 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).
Montambault 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 Montambault to achieve a uniform compression of the battery from all sides.
Regarding claim 17, Montambault teaches the method as recited in claim 13, wherein the compression force includes extending or retracting a piston of an air cylinder of a hydraulic cylinder of the compression device (¶[36] and Fig. 2: actuator 22 may be embodied by a hydraulic jack).
Montambault 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).
Montambault 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 Montambault to achieve a uniform compression of the battery from all sides.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montambault in view of Tracy (US Patent 5001977 A, Published Mar. 26, 1991).
Regarding claim 7, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Montambault 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).
Montambault 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 Montambault to provide simpler manufacture design for compression vs using hydraulics.
Regarding claim 19, Montambault teaches the method as recited in claim 13.
Montambault 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), or altering a shape of a shape memory allow structure of the compression force (alternative claim language used).
Montambault and Tracy teach devices 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 provide simpler manufacture design for compression vs using hydraulics.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montambault in view of Bekkedahl (US PG Pub 20040081866 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1.
Montambault 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).
Montambault and Bekkedahl teach devices 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 Montambault to achieve predictable results of compressing the battery by using a simpler and minimalist design and function of shape memory alloy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montambault in view of Tabatowski-Bush (US-20150022151-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Montambault teaches the battery charging system as recited in claim 1, (¶[47]: system allows pressures from 0 to 4000 PSI).
Montambault does not teach the control module is a component of an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) system.
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).
Montambault and Tabatowski-Bush both 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 Montambault to allow the EVSE to control the charging power to the vehicle based on the user or vehicle’s needs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ose (US 20150134172 A1) (¶[37]) describes different confining forces between charging and discharging, but not different confining forces during two different types of charging.
US 20260103091 A1 (filed 10/11/2024 by same inventor) discloses a compression device configured to apply a compression force to the battery array during a charging event; and a control module programmed to control the compression device such that the compression force fluctuates between a lower threshold and an upper threshold independent of a charging rate during the charging event
US 12166194 B2 (filed 2/18/2019) discloses heating the secondary battery while pressing the secondary battery to compress a positive electrode, negative electrode, or separator included in the secondary battery; charging and discharging the secondary battery at a rate of 0.1 C or more and 0.5 C or less while heating and pressing the secondary battery, but does not disclose separate compression forces based on charge rate.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ryu-Sung P. 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 September 21, 2026
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights