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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Claims 1-11 and 20) in the reply filed on December 29, 2025, is acknowledged.
3. Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed. Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose information that is material to the patentability of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-7, 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0420764 A1) in view of Hettrich (US 2020/0168959 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a battery assembly (110) comprising: a battery housing, called a pressurization chamber (111); a plurality of battery cells (120) stacked within the battery housing (111) in a stacking direction, each of the battery cells (120) comprising: an anode current collector; an anode material on the anode current collector; a cathode current collector; a cathode material on the cathode current collector; and a solid-state electrolyte sandwiched between the anode material and the cathode material for transporting ions between the anode material and the cathode material (paragraphs 0050-0053); a pressurizing device (150) for forcing the battery cells together in the stacking direction (paragraphs 0089-0091); and a coolant circuit, including a fluid storing part (151), a fluid supply device (152) and fluid lines (153, 154), for providing coolant into the battery housing (111) via a housing inlet, called an inlet port (118), to inherently exchange heat with the battery cells (120) and for providing coolant to the pressurizing device (150) when the battery cells (120) are being discharged (paragraphs 0081, 0092). Kim et al. do not specifically disclose a hydraulic actuator for forcing the battery cells together in the stacking direction.
The recitations, “for forcing the battery cells together in the stacking direction” and “to exchange heat with the battery cells and for providing coolant to the pressurizing device when the battery cells are being discharged”, are considered functional language which impart intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. 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. See MPEP 2113.
The recitation, “for providing coolant to the pressurizing device when the battery cells are being discharged”, is considered a contingent limitation. A contingent limitation requires only those limitations that must be performed and does not include limitations or given patentable weight to limitations that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04.
Hettrich disclose in Figure 2, an apparatus (200) including at least one controller (202, a housing (214) enclosing one or more stacked battery cells (212), a pressure sensor (208), a compressible element (210) located between the one or more battery cells (212) and the first end of the housing (214), and a fluid reservoir (204) connected to a pump (206 (paragraph 0066). Hettrich disclose wherein the apparatus (200) is a battery module having a housing and including a compressible fluid and at least one electrochemical cell including a lithium metal negative electrode and a thin film solid electrolyte (paragraph 0006). Hettrich disclose wherein the compressible element (210) is an actuated compressible element to pressurize or depressurize the battery system (paragraph 0054), and when the compressible element is a combination of a fluid reservoir and a pump, actuation is accomplished by increasing or decreasing pneumatic or hydraulic pressure using a pneumatic or hydraulic linear actuator (paragraph 0072). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressurizing device in the battery assembly of Kim et al. to include a hydraulic actuator for forcing the battery cells together in the stacking direction, because Hettrich teaches that this configuration increases battery performance as a function of pressure including pressurizing or depressurizing the battery system, specially when the battery is not being used (paragraph 0064).
With regard to Claim 2, Kim et al. disclose a controller (130) configured to control a supply of coolant (fluid) to the pressuring device (150), or modified hydraulic actuator, as a function of whether the battery cells (120) are being charged or discharged (paragraph 0102).
The recitation, “as a function of whether the battery cells are being charged or discharged”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. 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. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 3, Kim et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the coolant is supplied into the hydraulic actuator at a first pressure when the battery cells are being discharged and a second pressure when the battery cells are being charged, the first pressure being greater than the second pressure. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply the coolant into the hydraulic actuator at a first pressure when the battery cells are being discharged and a second pressure when the battery cells are being charged, the first pressure being greater than the second pressure, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The recitation, “is supplied into the hydraulic actuator at a first pressure when the battery cells are being discharged and a second pressure when the battery cells are being charged”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. 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. See MPEP 2113.
The recitation, “supply the coolant into the hydraulic actuator at a first pressure when the battery cells are being discharged and a second pressure when the battery cells are being charged”, is considered a contingent limitation. A contingent limitation requires only those limitations that must be performed and does not include limitations or given patentable weight to limitations that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04.
With regard to Claim 4, Kim et al. inherently disclose wherein the anode material of each battery cell expands during charging and contracts during discharging, but do not specifically disclose the first pressure being a function of a total amount the anode materials contract in the stacking direction. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first pressure being a function of a total amount the anode materials contract in the stacking direction, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The recitation, “the first pressure being a function of a total amount the anode materials contract in the stacking direction”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. 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. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 5, Kim et al. inherently disclose wherein the cathode material of each battery cell contracts during charging and expands during discharging, but do not specifically disclose the first pressure being a function of a total amount the anode materials contract in the stacking direction minus a total amount the cathode materials expand in the stacking direction. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the first pressure being a function of a total amount the anode materials contract in the stacking direction minus a total amount the cathode materials expand in the stacking direction, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The recitation, “the first pressure being a function of a total amount the anode materials contract in the stacking direction minus a total amount the cathode materials expand in the stacking direction”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. 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. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 6, Kim et al. disclose a pump (152) and at least one flow regulator (157, 160), the controller (130) configured to control the supply of coolant (fluid) to the pressurizing device (150), or modified hydraulic actuator, by controlling the pump (152) and/or the at least one flow regulator (157, 160) (paragraphs 0096, 0106-0107).
The recitation, “configured to control the supply of coolant to the hydraulic actuator by controlling the pump and/or the at least one flow regulator”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. 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. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 7, Kim et al. disclose a coolant tank , called a tank (151), supplying coolant to the pump (152), the at least one flow regulator (157, 160) including a first flow regulator (160) between the pump (152) and the hydraulic actuator (150) and a second flow regulator (157) between the pump (152) and the housing inlet (118) (paragraphs 0096-0113).
With regard to Claim 10, Kim et al. disclose wherein the battery cells (120) are electrically connected in parallel (paragraphs 0049-0051).
With regard to Claim 11, Kim et al. disclose wherein the anode material is a lithium metal inherently configured to expand during charging of the battery cells and configured to contract during discharging of the battery cells (paragraph 0008).
With regard to Claim 20, Kim at al. disclose a method of constructing a battery assembly (110) comprising: stacking a plurality of battery cells (120) within a battery housing, called a pressure chamber (111), in a stacking direction, each of the battery cells (120) comprising: an anode current collector; an anode material on the anode current collector; a cathode current collector; a cathode material on the cathode current collector; and a solid-state electrolyte sandwiched between the anode material and the cathode material for transporting ions between the anode material and the cathode material (paragraphs 0050-0053); connecting a coolant circuit, including a fluid storing part (151), a fluid supply device (152) and fluid lines (153, 154), to the battery housing (111) for providing coolant to the battery cells (120) via a housing inlet (118) and for providing coolant to a pressurizing device (150) for forcing the battery cells together in the stacking direction when the battery cells (120) are being discharged (paragraphs 0081, 0089-0092). Kim et al. do not specifically disclose a hydraulic actuator for forcing the battery cells together in the stacking direction when the battery cells are being discharged.
Hettrich disclose in Figure 2, an apparatus (200) including at least one controller (202, a housing (214) enclosing one or more stacked battery cells (212), a pressure sensor (208), a compressible element (210) located between the one or more battery cells (212) and the first end of the housing (214), and a fluid reservoir (204) connected to a pump (206 (paragraph 0066). Hettrich disclose wherein the apparatus (200) is a battery module having a housing and including a compressible fluid and at least one electrochemical cell including a lithium metal negative electrode and a thin film solid electrolyte (paragraph 0006). Hettrich disclose wherein the compressible element (210) is an actuated compressible element to pressurize or depressurize the battery system (paragraph 0054), and when the compressible element is a combination of a fluid reservoir and a pump, actuation is accomplished by increasing or decreasing pneumatic or hydraulic pressure using a pneumatic or hydraulic linear actuator (paragraph 0072). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressurizing device in the battery assembly of Kim et al. to include a hydraulic actuator for forcing the battery cells together in the stacking direction, because Hettrich teaches that this configuration increases battery performance as a function of pressure including pressurizing or depressurizing the battery system, especially when the battery is not being used (paragraph 0064).
9. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0420764 A1) and Hettrich (US 2020/0168959 A1), as applied to Claims 1-7, 10-11 and 20 above, and in further view of Georgin et al. (US 2023/0249807 A1).
With regard to Claims 8-9, Kim et al. and Hettrick disclose the battery assembly in paragraph 8 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the hydraulic actuator includes an actuator housing fixed with respect to the battery housing and a piston movable within the actuator housing, the piston being movable toward the battery cells to maintain a predetermined amount of force on the battery cells in the stacking direction to produce a predetermined contact pressure between the battery cells in both a discharging orientation and a charging orientation of the battery cells, and wherein the hydraulic actuator includes a pressure plate for contacting an end battery cell of the battery cells to force the battery cells together in the stacking direction.
Georgin et al. disclose a hydraulic actuator, having an actuator housing, for exerting force across the pressure plate, a series of friction discs and an end plate, and a piston configured to translate (move within the housing) the pressure plate toward the end plate when a pressurized fluid is applied to the hydraulic actuator (paragraph 0003). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery assembly of Kim et al. and Hettrich to include the hydraulic actuator including an actuator housing fixed with respect to the battery housing and a piston movable within the actuator housing, the piston being movable toward the battery cells to maintain a predetermined amount of force on the battery cells in the stacking direction to produce a predetermined contact pressure between the battery cells in both a discharging orientation and a charging orientation of the battery cells, and wherein the hydraulic actuator includes a pressure plate for contacting an end battery cell of the battery cells to force the battery cells together in the stacking direction, because Georgin et al. teach that this is a known configuration and function for an hydraulic actuator (paragraphs 0002-0003).
The recitation, “the piston being movable toward the battery cells to maintain a predetermined amount of force on the battery cells in the stacking direction to produce a predetermined contact pressure between the battery cells in both a discharging orientation and a charging orientation of the battery cells” is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. 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. See MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725