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
Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application. The application filed December 16, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections of the September 17, 2025 Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-3 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.
Claims 2-3 recites “the battery module” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear whether the battery module refers to the first battery module or the second battery module recited in claim 1. To advance prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “either or both of the first battery module and the second battery module.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golubkov (EP 3886202 A1, published 2021-09-29).
Evidentiary reference is supported by Dictionary.com, “laminated,” definition 1, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Golubkov teaches an all solid-state battery unit (Fig. 5, annotated and included below) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
861
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A first battery module in which a plurality of all solid-state battery cells are laminated (Annotated Fig. 5 shows a battery module on the left of the page, i.e. a first battery module, with a plurality of flat cells 20 [0117] and Golubkov teaches they can be solid state battery cells [0053]; the battery cells are formed of or set in thin layers and are therefore laminated (Dictionary.com: “laminated,” def. 1);
A second battery module in which a plurality of all solid-state battery cells are laminated (Annotated Fig. 5 shows a battery module on the right of the page, i.e. a second battery module, with a plurality of flat cells 20 [0117] and Golubkov teaches they can be solid state battery cells [0053]; the battery cells are formed of or set in thin layers and are therefore laminated (Dictionary.com: “laminated,” def. 1),
the number of the all solid-state battery cells in the first battery module is equal to the number of the all solid-state battery cells in the second battery module ([0117] describing Fig. 5 states that a positioning plate 50 is placed in the center of the stack of battery cells; [0112] describing a similar configuration in which the positioning plate is placed in the center of the stack of battery cells explicitly states that the plate is positioned preferably between the (N/2)-th and the (N/2+1)-th battery cell for an even integer of N cells, and between the ((N-1)/2)-th and the ((N + 1)/2)-th battery cell for an odd integer of N cells; consequently, each battery module has the same number of battery cells);
A partition provided between the first battery module and the second battery module (positioning plate 50; annotated Fig. 5, [0112],[0117]);
A plurality of fluid pressure cylinders 30 respectively disposed on one end side in a lamination direction of the first battery module and the other end side in a lamination direction of the second battery module (A lamination, or layering, direction is left/right of the page; fluid springs 30 correspond to the claimed fluid pressure cylinders, because [0055] discloses that the fluid springs can have a cylindrical geometry and provides a pressure on the entire adjacent areas of the adjacent battery cells. As shown in annotated Fig. 5, they are respectively disposed on one end side in a lamination direction of the first battery module and the other end side in a lamination direction of the second battery module);
A fluid pressure device 12 configured to commonly provide a fluid pressure to the plurality of fluid pressure cylinders 30 (a fluid pressure adjusting means 12 is used to control the pressure in fluid springs 30, i.e. fluid pressure cylinders, and adjusts the pressure to a required set point [0093]);
And
A control unit configured to control the fluid pressure device 12 such that pressurization forces are applied in opposite directions in which the plurality of fluid pressure cylinders face each other (Fig. 5 shows each of the plurality of fluid pressure cylinders facing each other and describes in [0089] how each fluid spring, i.e. fluid pressure cylinder, exerts the same pressure on the fluid spring in the opposite direction, resulting in pressurization forces applied in opposite directions in which the plurality of fluid pressure cylinders face each other. A control unit is disclosed in [0110] as being used to transmit pressure signals to a fluid pressure adjusting means 12, that is, to control fluid pressure device 12, which controls the fluid pressure of fluid pressure cylinders 30; this is described as corresponding to the embodiment of Fig. 3, which also corresponds to the embodiment shown in Fig. 5.),
Wherein the control unit controls the fluid pressure of the fluid pressure device depending on either or both of a temperature of and a State of Charge of a battery module including either or both of the first battery module and the second battery module (As discussed in addressing a previous limitation, the control unit controls the fluid pressure of the fluid pressure device. Golubkov further discloses in [0120] that fluid pressure may be adjusted depending on whether a safety check signal has been received from a safety check sensor (Claim 13), wherein the safety check sensor can correspond to a thermal (temperature) sensor and/or a cell voltage sensor and/or a current sensor monitoring the stack of the battery cells (both battery modules) or of at least one of the battery cells comprised in the stack. Golubkov also explicitly mentions adjusting pressure in response to the State of Charge of the cell or in response to thermal runaway ([0121]). Thus, the control unit of Golubkov is capable of performing the intended use of controlling the fluid pressure of the fluid pressure device depending on either or both of a temperature of and a State of Charge of a battery module including either or both of the first battery module and the second battery module).
Regarding claim 4, Golubkov teaches the all-solid state battery unit of claim 1. Golubkov further teaches the control unit has a pressure sensor 14 (Fig. 5; [0115]) configured to detect the fluid pressure.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (EP 3886202 A1, published 2021-09-29).
Regarding claim 2, Golubkov teaches the all solid-state battery unit of claim 1.
Golubkov anticipates the claimed limitation, because the taught battery unit is capable of performing the claimed limitation. A control unit is disclosed in [0110] as being used to transmit pressure signals to a fluid pressure adjusting means 12, that is, to control fluid pressure device 12, which controls the fluid pressure of fluid pressure cylinders 30, in response to temperature signals received from thermal sensors (Claim 13).
Golubkov discloses a control unit which controls the fluid pressure based on input of detected temperature provided by temperature sensors (Claim 13). It is the examiner’s opinion that the claimed functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art’s battery unit (see MPEP § 2114, I.)
Additionally, Golubkov’s teaching of the battery unit establishes a prima case of obviousness. Specifically, Golubkov teaches that temperature deviations within battery cells of a battery module can affect the power generation of the battery module and also lead to abnormal reactions occurring therein that can deteriorate the cycling performance and shorten the battery life-span ([0015]). Therefore, temperature is a result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have used routine experimentation to control the control unit to adjust/control the fluid pressure of the fluid pressure device 12 as needed in response to temperature changes of the battery module to optimize its power generation, cycling performance, and life-span.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golubkov (EP 3886202 A1, published 2021-09-29) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Obayashi et al (JP 2008288168 A, previously introduced in the Office Action of 2025-09-17).
Evidentiary support is provided by Brylski N, “Application Note: State of Charge Estimation Using Smart Battery Charger,” Oct 2021.
Regarding claim 3, Golubkov teaches the all solid-state battery unit of claim 1.
Golubkov anticipates the claimed limitation, because the taught battery unit is capable of performing the claimed limitation. Golubkov discloses a control unit used to transmit pressure signals to a fluid pressure adjusting means 12, that is, to control fluid pressure device 12, which controls the fluid pressure of fluid pressure cylinders 30 in response to voltage and current signals received from sensors ([0110]; Claim 13), which can be used to calculate the State of Charge, as disclosed by Brylski (p1: Abstract, Introduction). It is the examiner’s opinion that the claimed functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art’s battery unit (see MPEP § 2114, I.)
In the same field of endeavor, Obayashi teaches in [0045] that low State of Charge (SOC) can result in deposit formation between electrodes in the battery, whereas high SOC can result in high resistance/reduced ion permeability of the separator; and [0045] further teaches if a pressurization force can be controlled by a control unit based on the SOC of the battery, the performance of the battery pack system can be fully utilized. Therefore, SOC is a result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious based on Obayashi’s teaching to have used routine experimentation to control the control unit of Golubkov to adjust/control the pressurization force as needed in response to the SOC to optimize the resistance and ion permeability of the separator and mitigate deposit formation between the electrodes. Thus, the combination of prior art establishes a prima case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1-4 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
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.
/G.L.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 03/12/2026