DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed 7/22/26. 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 § 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. 3. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20200059483, hereinafter Kim 483’- See IDS dated 6/16/23) in view of Kim et al. (9,969,296, hereinafter Kim 296’).
Regarding claim 1, Kim 483’ discloses an apparatus comprising a module case 100 in which a plurality of battery cells 110 are accommodated; at least two pressure plates 120 installed in the module case and configured to press the plurality of battery cells toward the module case; a pressure driver 130 configured to apply pressure to the at least two pressure plates and a controller 200 configured to control a pressure force and a pressure pattern with respect to the plurality of battery cells, wherein the at least two pressure plates are configured to simulate expansion and contraction of the plurality of battery cells by repeatedly pressurizing and depressurizing the plurality of battery cells and pressure pads 140 that are attached to the pressure plates at one side and that is capable of being attached to opposite sides of the battery cell to press an entire area of the cell (See Fig. 6, See Pg. 2, Para. 7, Pg. 3, Paras. 1 – 3, Pg. 7, Para. 7 and Pg. 8, Paras. 1, 5 and 7). Kim 483’ fails to disclose that the two pressure plates are driven to press the plurality of battery cells toward opposite sides of the module case.
However, Kim 296’ discloses a method and apparatus comprising a plurality of battery cells 111a, 111b that are disposed in a housing and pressure plates 121a, 121b that are driven to press the battery cells towards opposite sides of the housing (See Col. 5, lines 28 – 33, Col. 6, lines 29 – 43, Col. 9, lines 59 – 67 and Col. 10, lines 1 – 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kim 483’ according to the teachings of Kim 296’ for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables a battery module to absorb and compensate for expansion in thickness of the battery cells that arise during operation (See Kim 296’, Col. 1, lines 49 – 53). Regarding claim 2, in Kim 483’, the at least two pressure plates 120 are configured to pressurize or depressurize the plurality of battery cells in a same direction as a swelling direction (See Fig. 6, See Pg. 2, Para. 7 and Pg. 3, Paras. 1 - 3).
Regarding claim 5, in Kim 483’, a pressure sensor 150 is disposed at an inner surface of the module case facing at least one of the plurality of battery cells and is configured to measure a pressure applied to the module case (See Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, in Kim 483’, the at least two pressure plates 120 are provided as two or more pressure plates disposed in the length direction of the plurality of battery cell cells 110 to pressurize the plurality of battery cell cells with a same pressure or different pressures (See Figs. 4 and 6, See Pg. 8, Para. 6).
Regarding claim 10, in Kim 483’, a charging/discharging part is configured to charge and discharge the plurality of battery cells 110 (See Pg. 6, Paras. 5 - 6).
Regarding claim 11, in Kim 483’, the charging/discharging part is configured to measure charging/discharging performance of the plurality of battery cells according to a pressure condition (See Pg. 6, Paras. 5 - 6). Regarding claim 16, Kim 483’ fails to disclose that a first one of the at least two pressure plates is configured to press at least one battery cell among the plurality of battery cells toward a first side of the module case, and wherein a second one of the at least two pressure plates is configured to press at least another battery cell among the plurality of battery cells toward a second side of the module case opposite to the first side. However, Kim 296’ discloses a method and apparatus comprising a plurality of battery cells 111a, 111b that are disposed in a housing and pressure plates 121a, 121b that are driven to press the battery cells towards opposite sides of the housing (See Col. 5, lines 28 – 33, Col. 6, lines 29 – 43, Col. 9, lines 59 – 67 and Col. 10, lines 1 – 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kim 483’ according to the teachings of Kim 296’ for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device enables a battery module to absorb and compensate for expansion in thickness of the battery cells that arise during operation (See Kim 296’, Col. 1, lines 49 – 53).5. Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim 483’ and Kim 296’, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fetzer et al. (2012/0189879, hereinafter Fetzer). Regarding claim 3, Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ fail to disclose that the pressure driver includes a hydraulic pump and a pressure member connected to the hydraulic pump to pressurize the at least two pressure plates and the plurality of battery cells.
However, Fetzer discloses a method and apparatus comprising a pressure
member (mechanical-hydraulic pressure generating device) having a piston cylinder
unit and a pump for pressurizing stacked battery cells (See Pg. 2, Para. 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ according to the teachings of Fetzer for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device comprises one or more cells to reduce adverse effects on operation which occur because of different states of battery charge (See Fetzer, Pg. 1, Para. 0001).
Regarding claim 8, Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ fail to disclose that the pressure member is provided as two or more pressure members disposed in a length direction of the plurality of battery cells to pressurize the plurality of battery cells with a same pressure or different pressures.
However, in Fetzer, the pressure member is provided as at least one pressure
member (at least one mechanical-hydraulic pressure generating device) disposed in a
length direction of the plurality of battery cell cells to pressurize the plurality of
battery cells with a same pressure or different pressures (See Pg. 2, Para. 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ according to the teachings of Fetzer for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device comprises one or more cells to reduce adverse effects on operation which occur because of different states of battery charge (See Fetzer, Pg. 1, Para. 0001).
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 483’ and Kim 296’, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR20200030967, hereinafter Park - See IDS dated 4/17/25).
Regarding claim 4, Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ fail to disclose a buffer pad disposed between the module case and a battery cell located at an outermost portion among the plurality of battery cells accommodated in the module case.
However, Park discloses an apparatus comprising a buffer pad 40 that is
disposed between a module case 23 and a battery cell 11 located at an outermost
portion among a plurality of battery cells accommodated in the module case (See Fig.
2, See Pg. 4, Paras. 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ according to the teachings of Park for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device improves the insulation between a battery case and a module case for storing battery cells (See Park, Pg. 2, Para. 2).
7. Claim 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 483’ and Kim 296’, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kristofek et al. (9,306,252, hereinafter Kristofek - See IDS dated 8/19/24).
Regarding claim 6, Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ fail to disclose a displacement sensor located outside the module case that is configured to measure a displacement of the module case according to the pressure.
However, Kristofek discloses an apparatus comprising monitoring the health of
battery cells 14 using a position sensor (See Col. 7, lines 46 - 56 and Col. 8, lines 1 -
3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ according to the teachings of Kristofek for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device improves the performance and/or longevity of rechargeable battery cells (See Kristofek, Col. 2, lines 41 - 59).
Regarding claim 9, Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ fail to disclose a welding fatigue tester configured to test a state of a welded portion formed in the module case.
However, in Kristofek, the health of battery cells and cell pouches is monitored
to detect cell failure (See Col. 7, lines 46 - 56 and Col. 8, lines 1 - 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kim 483’ and Kim 296’ according to the teachings of Kristofek for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device improves the performance and/or longevity of rechargeable battery cells (See Kristofek, Col. 2, lines 41 - 59). Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not anticipate or make obvious the provisions of “the pressure driver comprises a pressure member disposed in a middle portion of the module case in the width direction” (referring to claim 17) and “wherein no battery cell is disposed between the pair of pressure plates in the middle portion of the module case in the width direction” in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on Pg. 9, Para. 3 and Pg. 10, Paras, 2 – 3, with
respect to these claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. In response to applicant’s arguments that the references do not disclose that at least two pressure plates are driven to press the plurality of battery cells toward opposite sides of the module case, it is the examiner’s position that applicant is arguing new issues and after further consideration, Kim 483’ discloses that the pressure pads 140 are attached to the pressure plates at one side and are capable of being attached to opposite sides of the battery cell to press an entire area of the respective battery cell (See Fig. 6, See Pg. 2, Para. 7, Pg. 3, Paras. 1 – 3, Pg. 7, Para. 7 and Pg. 8, Paras. 1, 5 and 7), thus the reference still stands, and Kim 296’ discloses a plurality of battery cells 111a, 111b that are disposed in a housing and pressure plates 121a, 121b that are driven to press the battery cells towards opposite sides of the housing (See Col. 5, lines 28 – 33, Col. 6, lines 29 – 43, Col. 9, lines 59 – 67 and Col. 10, lines 1 – 14). Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
12. Yoshimizu (JP2019175800) discloses a battery cell pressure device.13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/29/26
