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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I drawn to a battery module in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that special technical feature is not special in view of the prior art cited in the restriction mailed 03/16/2026, Yang (WO 2018205598 A1).
The amendment made to the claims necessitated an updated restriction requirement and Groups I-II still lack unit of invention for the following reasons: Lee (US 20220077550 A1) demonstrate a lack of unity and/or inventive step as set forth on pg. 3-4 (i.e. rejection of claim 1) of this Office Action.
Groups I-II share the common technical feature of at most, a battery module, comprising: a plurality of cells; a pressure assembly, in contact with at least one of the plurality of battery cells, comprising a surface to move due to swelling of one of the plurality of battery cells; and a plurality of sensors, coupled to the pressure assembly, configured to detect movement of the surface due to the swelling of the at least one of the plurality of battery cells.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/10/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20220077550 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery module (Abstract), comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (i.e. battery stack, [0010], Fig. 1, 100),
a pressure assembly (i.e. pressure pad, [0010]Fig. 1, 300), in contact with at least one of the plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1), comprising a surface configured to move due to swelling of one of the plurality of battery cells (i.e. pressure pad deformable in response to an external force, [0045]); and
a plurality of sensors (i.e. pressure measuring sensor, [0041], Fig. 5B, 520), coupled to the pressure assembly (i.e. pressure plate, Fig. 5B, 300) configured to detect movement of the surface due to swelling of the at least one of the plurality of battery cells (i.e. surface pressure measuring sensor to measure surface pressure of battery cell, [0041]).
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220077550 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Weston et al. (US 20180010969 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Lee discloses surface pressure measuring sensors positioned on the surface of the pressure pad to measure a surface pressure of the battery cell ([0044]; Fig. 5B, 520).
Lee does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of sensors comprises a first flexible section having one of a circular shape and an oval shape, and wherein a first strain gauge is attached to the first flexible section, as claimed in claim 2.
Weston, from a relevant problem-solving area of force and pressure sensing, teaches a directional force sensor (Abstract) which comprises a first flexible section (i.e. flexible leaf spring, [0005], Fig. 3C, 202) having a generally oval or circular shape (Fig. 3C, [0007]), and wherein a first strain gauge is attached to the first flexible section, as claimed in claim 2, and as shown in annotated Weston figure 3C below.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Weston Fig. 3C
Lee does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of sensors comprises a second flexible section, wherein a second strain gauge is attached to the second flexible section, and wherein the first strain gauge and the second strain gauge are electrically connected in series, as claimed in claim 4.
Weston further teaches the directional force sensor comprises a second flexible section, wherein a second strain gauge is attached to the second flexible section (i.e. flexible arms. [0034]), as claimed in claim 4 and as shown in annotated Weston figure 3C below.
PNG
media_image2.png
550
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Weston Fig. 3C
Weston further teaches the strain gauges can be connected in series to yield a total weight measurement on the leaf spring ([0045]), as claimed in claim 4.
Furthermore, Weston teaches such a directional force sensor comprises one or more load sensors disposed about the leaf spring such that in response to a force applied to the leaf spring, the load sensors provide a signal at an output thereof ([0009]).
Weston is analogous prior art to the pressure sensor of the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sensing of pressure or force changes.
As Lee does not appear to strictly limit the surface pressure measuring sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to routinely substitute Lee’s surface pressure measuring sensor with Weston’s directional force sensor with reasonable expectation of success of achieving a successful pressure sensor.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220077550 A1) and Weston et al. (US 20180010969 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Nishihara et al. (JP H0198716 A).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses all limitation as set forth above.
Modified Lee discloses the first flexible section to be a flexible leaf spring, such as, but not strictly limited to, a metal wave washer (Weston, [0005]), but does not disclose the first flexible section comprising plastic.
Nishihara teaches a leaf spring made of reinforced plastic (pg. 1, lines 9-10). Nishihara further teaches leaf springs are generally formed of spring steel and by integrating reinforced plastic around metal portions of the leaf spring, a leaf spring with reduced weight is attainable while still sufficiently satisfying strength and durability requirements (pg. 1, lines 13-14 and 30-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have improved the flexible leaf spring of modified Lee such that it comprised plastic for the benefit of a leaf spring with reduced weight, while still sufficiently strong and durable, as taught by Nishihara.
Claims 5 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220077550 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jeong et al. (US 20220029250 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Lee discloses a battery module designed such that the battery module and case are prevented from being deformed even when the battery cell expands ([0008]). Furthermore, Lee discloses the pressure pad (Fig. 1, 300 and Fig. 5B) having fluid located within such that it is deformable in response to an external force, particularly during expansion of the battery cell ([0045]).
Lee does not disclose wherein the pressure assembly further comprises: a first plate; a second plate; and a plurality of springs, in contact with the first plate and second plate, configured to apply a force to the first plate and the second plate.
Jeong discloses a similar battery module ([0033]) which includes a first and second cell stack, a spring (Fig. 3, 600) located between the first cell stack and second cell stack, a first plate (Fig. 3, 710) located between the first cell stack and spring, and a second plate (Fig. 3, 720) located between the second cell stack and spring ([0033]).
Jeong further teaches that it is preferable that two or more springs are disposed between the first plate and second plate to be spaced apart an equal interval in order to prevent concentrating the elastic force of the spring on portions of the first cell stack and second cell stack ([0040]).
Jeong further teaches that in applying such a configuration including a spring to the interior of the battery module, the pressure due to expansion of battery cells can be effectively alleviated ([0021]).
Jeong is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, specifically accommodating the expansion and swelling of battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have routinely substituted Jeong’s plate and spring structure for Lee’s pressure pad with a reasonable expectation of effectively alleviating the expansion of the battery cells within a battery module.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee further discloses the surface pressure measuring sensors to be positioned on the surface of the pressure pad such that a plurality of surface pressure measuring sensors is on one surface of the pressure assembly (Lee, Fig. 5B, 520).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have coupled at least one of the plurality of sensors to the first plate of the pressure assembly, with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a pressure assembly capable of use in a battery module as this is a common configuration known in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220077550 A1) and Jeong et al. (US 20220029250 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and in further view of Semiatin (Metalworking: Sheet Forming).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee further discloses the form of the springs is not limited, but it is preferable that the springs are cylindrical springs ([0037]).
Modified Lee does not disclose wherein the plurality of springs are one of die springs and leaf springs.
Semiatin teaches die springs are formed using rectangular wire which allows maximum load capacity for a given space to be obtained (col. 3, 3rd full paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized die springs for the springs of Modified Lee for the benefit of obtaining a higher load capacity, as taught by Semiatin.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220077550 A1), Jeong et al. (US 20220029250 A1), and Semiatin (Metalworking: Sheet Forming) as applied to claims 1, 5, and 6 above, and in further view of Weston et al. (US 20180010969 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee discloses a surface pressure measuring sensors positioned on the surface of the pressure pad to measure a surface pressure of the battery cell (Lee, [0044]; Fig. 5B, 520).
Modified Lee does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of sensors is at least one leaf spring having a strain gauge attached to the surface of the leaf spring.
Weston, from a relevant problem-solving area of force and pressure sensing, teaches a directional force sensor (Abstract) which provided from a flexible leaf spring having strain gauges coupled thereto ([0005]), Fig. 3C).
Weston is analogous prior art to the pressure sensor of the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sensing of pressure or force changes.
As Lee does not appear to strictly limit the surface pressure measuring sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to routinely substitute Lee’s surface pressure measuring sensor with Weston’s directional force sensor with reasonable expectation of success of achieving a successful pressure sensor coupled to the pressure assembly.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220077550 A1) and as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of van Lammeren et al. (US 20130122332 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Lee further discloses a pressure measuring unit including a pressure measuring sensor for measuring the surface pressure of the battery cell ([0014]) and a pressure adjusting unit for adjusting the volume of the pressure pad in response to information on the pressure measured by the pressure measuring unit ([0018]). Furthermore, Lee discloses the volume of the pressure pad is appropriately adjusted in response to the expansion and contraction of the battery cells ([0032]), thus satisfying the claim limitation, “output from at least one of the plurality of sensors in response to movement of the surface due to the swelling of the at least one of the plurality of battery cells”.
Lee does not explicitly disclose a battery management circuit board coupled to at least one of the plurality of sensors, configured to receive an output from the at least one of the plurality of sensors.
Lammeren teaches a battery management circuit board (i.e. battery management integrated circuit, [0007]) including a sensor coupled to the controller that can measure a battery cell parameters, such as pressure ([0005];[0007]). Lammeren further teaches that such battery management systems are advantageous because they allow for increased State of Health estimation to be provided, since slow pressure build up indicates decay of chemical components of the battery ([0033]). Additionally, there are safety benefits as a sudden rise in pressure indicates problems that require shut down of the battery pack ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the battery management circuit board and system, for the benefit of increased State of Health estimation and safety benefits, as taught by Lammeren and as desired by Lee.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee further discloses the battery management integrated circuit includes an analog to digital convertor (ADC) (Lammeren, [0022]). Thus, the battery management circuit board is configured to generate a digital value for the output from the at least one of the plurality of sensors.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220077550 A1), as applied to claims 1 above, and in further view of Jeong et al. (US 20220029250 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20230115425 A1), hereinafter Lee '425 .
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Lee discloses a battery module designed such that the battery module and case are prevented from being deformed even when the battery cell expands ([0008]). Furthermore, Lee discloses the pressure pad (Fig. 1, 300 and Fig. 5B) having fluid located within such that it is deformable in response to an external force, particularly during expansion of the battery cell ([0045]).
Lee does not disclose the pressure assembly further comprising a plate inhibitor configured to restrict movement of a first portion of at least one plate of the pressure assembly while permitting movement of a second portion thereof.
Jeong discloses a similar battery module ([0033]) which includes a first and second cell stack, a spring (Fig. 3, 600) located between the first cell stack and second cell stack, a first plate (Fig. 3, 710) located between the first cell stack and spring, and a second plate (Fig. 3, 720) located between the second cell stack and spring ([0033]).
Jeong further teaches that it is preferable that two or more springs are disposed between the first plate and second plate to be spaced apart an equal interval in order to prevent concentrating the elastic force of the spring on portions of the first cell stack and second cell stack ([0040]).
Jeong further teaches that in applying such a configuration including a spring to the interior of the battery module, the pressure due to expansion of battery cells can be effectively alleviated ([0021]).
Jeong is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, specifically accommodating the expansion and swelling of battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have routinely substituted Jeong’s plate and spring structure for Lee’s pressure pad with a reasonable expectation of achieving a battery module capable of effectively alleviate the expansion of the battery cells.
Lee further discloses that a central region M of the battery expands more than the edge region S of the battery and thus there is a difference in pressure applied to the central region compared to the edge region of the expanding battery ([0045]).
While Lee does not disclose an inhibitor restrict movement of a first portion of at least one plate of the pressure assembly while permitting movement of a second portion thereof, Lee recognizes that there is reason to limit different portions of the pressure assembly due to uneven expansion of the battery cell.
Lee ‘425 teaches a similar battery module with a pressing member (Abstract) including a distance retention portion ([0018]), Fig. 4, 2500) located between an upper pack cover (Fig. 4, 2310) and upper pressing plate (Fig. 4, 2210). Lee ‘425 further teaches the distance retention portion supplements tensile and pressing forces by elastic members ([0056]) and that the distance retention portion is a quadrangular pillar made of metal ([0056]).
A skilled artisan would recognize that in being in between the upper pack cover and upper pressing plate, as well as being made of metal, the distance retention portion is capable of restricting movement of a first portion of the upper pressing plate while permitting movement of a second portion of the upper pressing plate, and that modified Lee possesses tensile force due to swelling batteries as well as pressing force from the springs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the distance retention portion for the purpose of supplementing the tensile force by the expanding battery cells, and the pressing force of the springs, as suggested by Lee ‘425.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,532 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,091,532 B2 is directed towards a battery module comprising a first and second plate, and a sensor with specific structural characteristics (i.e. flexible section, strain gauge) which are required by the instant application (Claims 1-3 and 5).
Claim 1-2, and 4-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, and 6-10 of co-pending Application No. 17/966,500 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because co-pending application 17/966/500 is directed towards to a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells, a pressure assembly comprising two plates and a plurality of springs, and a sensor, where the sensor and pressure assembly has specific structural characteristics (i.e. flexible section, strain gauge), which are required by the instant application (Claims 1-2, and 4-8), as well as a battery management circuit board (Claims 9-10).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights