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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 03/27/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 01/29/2026
is acknowledged.
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)(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)(2) 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 (400, Fig. 2, [0042])) 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 (400, Fig. 2);
a constraint part (700, Fig. 2, See annotated figure below, [0043]) 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 (100, Fig. 2, [0043]);
a separator (300, Fig. 2, [0039]) disposed at a location between the solid battery cells and the first end plate (400, Fig. 2, [0039]); and
a strut member (700, Fig. 2, See annotated figure below, [0044]) installed between the first end plate and the second end plate,
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]).
By inherency, it is known in the art that the thermal expansion of PET is greater than the thermal expansion of stainless steel.
PNG
media_image1.png
842
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hidaka teaches in the separator, a thermal expansion coefficient of a side of one end is greater than a thermal expansion coefficient on opposite side.
Hidaka teaches the separator (300, “end spacer”, Fig. 4, [0056]) includes a spacer body portion (310, Fig. 4, [0056]) and terminal block (320, Fig. 4, [0056]) provided at an end of the end spacer ([0061]). The separator (300, “end spacer”) is formed of PET ([0037]). The terminal member (900, Fig. 4, [0061]) is formed integrally with the terminal block (320, Fig. 4, [0061]) and is made of stainless steel ([0061]). Therefore, the thermal expansion coefficient of the PET end of the separator (300, “end spacer”) is greater than the thermal expansion coefficient of the terminal member made of stainless steel and formed integrally with the terminal block provided at another end of the separator (300, “end spacer”, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Hidaka teaches the strut member has an expansion mechanism that expands and contracts at a predetermined ratio in the stacking direction.
Hidaka teaches the strut member (700, “side member”, Fig. 2, See claim 1 rejection and annotated figure above, [0044]) may be formed of a material similar to the material of the first end plate (400, “end member”, Fig. 2, [0042], [0044]), where the first end plate (400, “end member”) is made of stainless steel ([0042]), and similarly, the strut member (700, “side member”) could also be stainless steel. Stainless steel has the 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, a plurality of strut members (700, “side member”) are installed so as to face each other while having the solid battery cells (100, “energy storage device”) sandwiched therebetween (700, Fig. 2, See claim 1 rejection and annotated figure above, [0041], [0043]).
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 further in view of Watanabe (US 2017/010627) and University of Chicago (Thermal Coefficients).
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 a secondary battery (1, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0034]) having an electrode body (2, Fig. 2, [0036]) constituting of a solid electrolyte (13, Fig. 2, [0036]) and having an exterior body (3, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0064], shown as rectangular parallelepiped shaped). The electrode body and the exterior body are constituted of materials all having a thermal expansion coefficient of 10 x 10−6/°C or lower ([0063]).
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]) as the secondary battery has excellent sealing properties or conduction properties and has a long service life and high reliability (Watanabe: [0089). This substitution is appropriate because Hidaka teaches the energy storage device may be a battery using a solid electrolyte (Hidaka: 100, [0036]) and the energy storage device is a secondary battery cell having a flat rectangular parallelepiped shape (Hidaka: 100, Fig. 2, [0035]).
Modified Hidaka does not specifically 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, University of Chicago teaches polyethylene terephthalate (PET) has a thermal expansion coefficient of 59.4 x 10-6 m/m K, or 59.4 x 10-6/K. By inherency, the separator (Hidaka: 300, “end spacer”), which are formed of PET (300, Fig. 2, [0037]), also has a thermal expansion coefficient of 59.4 x 10-6/K, which is equivalent to 59.4 x 10-6/°C. Watanabe teaches the electrode body and the exterior body of the solid battery cells (Watanabe: 1, “secondary battery”) are constituted of materials all having a thermal expansion coefficient of 10 x 10−6/°C or lower (Watanabe: 2, 3, [0063]).
Therefore, the thermal expansion coefficient of the separator is 5.94 times or more the thermal expansion coefficient of the solid battery cells. 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).
Conclusion
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