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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hidaka (US 2022/077535).
Regarding claim 1, Hidaka teaches a battery module (10, Fig. 2, [0034]) comprising:
a plurality of stacked solid battery cells (100, Fig. 2, [0034]));
a first end plate and a second end plate (700, See annotated Fig. 2 below, [0043])) disposed at one end and other end of the plurality of solid battery cells in a stacking direction, respectively, so as to face each other (700, Fig. 1, Fig. 2);
a constraint part (400, Fig. 2, [0042]) configured to press against the plurality of solid battery cells from both ends via the first end plate and the second end plate and configured to constrain the plurality of solid battery cells (Fig. 1);
a separator (300, Fig. 2, [0039]) disposed at a location between the solid battery cells and the first end plate (700, See annotated Fig. 2 below, [0039]); and
a strut member (700, Fig. 2, See annotated Fig. 2 below, [0044]) that is installed between an inner surface of the first end plate in the stacking direction and an inner surface of the second end plate in the stacking direction and that is configured to maintain a distance between the inner surface of the first end plate and the inner surface of the second end plate (See annotated Fig. 2 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
960
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the separator (300, “end spacer”, Fig. 2, 300 are formed of an insulating resin material such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), [0037]) is greater than a thermal expansion coefficient of the solid battery cells (100, “energy storage device”, Fig. 3; 100 includes 110, [0048]; 110 includes 111 and 112 made of stainless steel, [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Hidaka teaches in the separator, a thermal expansion coefficient of a side of one end (Fig. 4, [0037], 300 is formed of PET) is greater than a thermal expansion coefficient on opposite side (Fig. 4, [0056], 300 includes terminal block 320; [0061], terminal member 900 is formed integrally with the terminal block 320 and is made of stainless steel; the thermal expansion coefficient of 300, which is made of PET, is greater than the thermal expansion coefficient of 900, which is made of stainless steel).
Regarding claim 4, Hidaka teaches the strut member has an expansion mechanism that expands and contracts at a predetermined ratio in the stacking direction ([0044], 700 may be formed of a material similar to 400; [0042], 400 is made of stainless steel; therefore, 700 could also be stainless steel, which has thermal expansion as the expansion mechanism that expands and contracts at a predetermined ratio, with the predetermined ratio being the thermal expansion coefficient of the stainless steel, in the stacking direction).
Regarding claim 5, Hidaka teaches in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction (z direction, Fig. 2), a plurality of strut members are installed so as to face each other while having the solid battery cells sandwiched therebetween (See annotated Fig. 2 below, [0041], [0043]).
PNG
media_image2.png
960
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Hidaka teaches the strut member is formed of a material ([0044], 700 may be formed of a material similar to 400; [0042], 400 is made of stainless steel; therefore, 700 could also be stainless steel) that has hardness that can endure a pressing force due to the constraint part (steel can endure pressing force) and that has a thermal expansion coefficient smaller than that of another components of the battery module ([0037], 300 is formed of PET; the thermal expansion coefficient of 900, which is made of stainless steel, is smaller than the thermal expansion coefficient of 300, which is made of PET), and
the strut member is provided so as leave at least one area where the strut member is not installed (See annotated Fig. 1 below) from which the solid battery cells can be put in to and out from the battery module (See MPEP 2114(II) - "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" and "A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." In the instant case, the strut member is claimed to leave at least one area where the strut member is not installed, and using this area to put the solid battery cells in and out from the battery module is only an intended use of that area).
PNG
media_image3.png
690
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka (US 2022/077535) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Watanabe (US 2016/372799). University of Chicago (Thermal Coefficients) is used as a citation to support PET thermal coefficient.
Regarding claim 2, Hidaka does not teach the thermal expansion coefficient of the separator is 10 times or more and 100 times or less the thermal expansion coefficient of the solid battery cells.
However, Watanabe teaches the thermal expansion coefficient of the solid battery cells (1, [0034]; [0063], electrode body and the exterior body are constituted of materials all having a thermal expansion coefficient of 10 x 10−6/°C or lower). The solid battery cells were disclosed for the purpose of improving battery sealing properties or conduction properties ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the energy storage apparatus of Hidaka (Hidaka: 10, Fig. 2, [0034]) to use the secondary battery of Watanabe (Watanabe: 1, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0034]) as the energy storage device of Hidaka (Hidaka: 100, Fig. 2, [0034]) in order to improve service life and reliability (Watanabe: [0089]).
Hidaka, in view of Watanabe, teaches the thermal expansion coefficient of the separator ([0037], 300 are formed of an insulating resin material such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET); University of Chicago: page 4 teaches PET has a thermal expansion coefficient of 59.4 x 10-6/K, which is equivalent to 59.4 x 10-6/°C) is 5.94 times the thermal expansion coefficient of the solid battery cells (Watanabe: 2, 3, [0063], electrode body and the exterior body of the solid battery cells are constituted of materials all having a thermal expansion coefficient of 10 x 10−6/°C or lower). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art," a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights