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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see ¶6). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference characters 21-23 and 31 in fig. 1
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 1/14/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/14/26.
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of subgroup IA, species 1 and subspecies A in the reply filed on 1/14/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. However, upon further consideration, the restriction requirement between subgroups IA-IB, between species 1-6 and between subspecies A-B is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the pressing cylinder has a hemispherical shape.”
However, there is no support for a pressing cylinder that can be both a “cylinder” and a hemispherical object at the same time. Specifically, a cylinder cannot be hemispherical, and vice versa.
Accordingly, Applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
As to claim 7, Applicant did not have possession of claim 7 because claim 7 depends from claim 5.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the pressing cylinder has a hemispherical shape.”
However, it is unclear how a pressing cylinder can be both a “cylinder” and a hemispherical shape at the same time. Specifically, a cylinder cannot be hemispherical, and vice versa.
Accordingly, claim 5 is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the pressing cylinder has a half-cylinder shape.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the pressing cylinder has a diameter that is less than a width of each of the first incision portion and the second incision portion.”
However, according to claim 2, there are two first incision portions and two second incision portions. Accordingly, it is unclear, in claim 7, which first incision portion and which second incision portion is being referred to.
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that one of the first incision portions and one of the second incision portions is being referred to.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the pressing cylinder has a hemispherical shape.”
This negates the limitation, in claim 4, that the pressing cylinder is a pressing “cylinder.”
Accordingly, claim 5 does not include all the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 7 does not include all the limitations of claim 4 because claim 7 depends from claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (CN 105203964 A, hereinafter Shi).
As to claim 1, Shi teaches a shock test apparatus for pouch-shaped battery cells (Shi’s apparatus is used for testing a battery cell 4; accordingly, Shi’s apparatus is capable of use for testing pouch-shaped battery cells), the shock test apparatus comprising:
a flat bottom plate 31;
a jig (comprising at least elements 32-33 – see figs. 3, 5 and 6) comprising a first jig member 32 (fig. 5) and a second jig member 33 (fig. ) configured to be located respectively at first and second opposite surfaces of a pouch-shaped battery cell (a pouch-shaped battery is capable of being placed between the first and second jig members of Shi), each of the first jig member and the second jig member having a quadrangular shape (the first and second jig members of Shi have quadrangular shapes when viewed in a direction perpendicular to distance R in fig. 3; additionally or alternatively, each of the first and second jig members of Shi has portion thereof, such as element 321 and 331 respectively, having a quadrangular shape); and
a pressing member 21-22 configured to press a predetermined part of the pouch-shaped battery cell (¶32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi in view of Xu et al. (CN 213498786 U, hereinafter Xu).
As to claim 3, Shi teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the jig further comprises a plurality of fastening members configured to fix the first jig member and the second jig member to each other with a distance therebetween, the fastening members extending between confronting edges of the first jig member and the second jig member.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FM)][AltContent: textbox (3b)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (3a)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
596
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xu teaches a test apparatus for vibration testing of a battery (fig. 1 and title), comprising jig having a first jig member 3a (fig. 1 above) and a second jig member 3b (fig. 1 above), wherein the jig further comprises a plurality of fastening members FM (fig. 1; ¶27) configured to fix the first jig member and the second jig member to each other with a distance therebetween, the fastening members extending between confronting edges of the first jig member and the second jig member (wherein the fastening members FM extend through slots 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Shi such that the jig members all have slots and wherein directly opposing jig members have fastening members extending therethrough, as taught by Xu, so as to provide additional support to the jig members during testing (e.g., the jigs support each other via the fastening members).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Shi to replace the use of Shi’s reinforcing ribs (on the jig members) with fastening members extending through slots in directly opposing jig members, as taught by Xu, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing clamping support for another for the predictable result that the battery is still successfully supported during testing.
Shi as modified teaches wherein the jig further comprises a plurality of fastening members FM (Xu) configured to fix the first jig member and the second jig member to each other with a distance therebetween, the fastening members extending between confronting edges of the first jig member and the second jig member.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (KR101526156B1) in view of Shi et al. (CN 105203964 A, hereinafter Shi).
As to claim 1, Jang teaches a shock test apparatus for pouch-shaped battery cells (the apparatus of Jang is capable of being used for testing pouch shaped battery cells), the shock test apparatus comprising:
a flat bottom plate 501;
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (PE)][AltContent: textbox (FPP)][AltContent: textbox (420X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
420
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a pressing member 420X (fig. 3 above) configured to press (¶16) a predetermined part of the pouch-shaped battery cell.
Jang does not teach a jig comprising a first jig member and a second jig member configured to be located respectively at first and second opposite surfaces of a pouch-shaped battery cell, each of the first jig member and the second jig member having a quadrangular shape.
Shi teaches a removable jig (comprising at least elements 32-33 – see figs. 3, 5 and 6; ¶35-36) comprising a first jig member 32 (fig. 5) and a second jig member 33 (fig. 6) configured to be located respectively at first and second opposite surfaces of a pouch-shaped battery cell (a pouch-shaped battery is capable of being placed between the first and second jig members of Shi), each of the first jig member and the second jig member having a quadrangular shape (the first and second jig members of Shi have quadrangular shapes when viewed in a direction perpendicular to distance R in fig. 3; additionally or alternatively, each of the first and second jig members of Shi has portion thereof, such as element 321 and 331 respectively, having a quadrangular shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jang to have a removable jig comprising a first jig member and a second jig member configured to be located respectively at first and second opposite surfaces of a pouch-shaped battery cell, each of the first jig member and the second jig member having a quadrangular shape, as taught by Shi, since such a modification would increase testing options for a user since batteries may be tested while positioned vertically or horizontally.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SIP1)][AltContent: textbox (SIP1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FIP2)]
PNG
media_image3.png
542
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (3211X)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FIP1)]
PNG
media_image4.png
444
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Jang as modified teaches wherein each of an upper side and a lower side of the first jig member 32 (Shi) has a first incision portion FIP1, FIP2 (figs. 3 and 5 of Shi above; wherein the first incision portions are groove or notch-like recesses) extending inwards by a predetermined area and a central part of the first jig member has a first through-hole portion 3211X (fig. 5 of Shi above; ¶35 of Shi) extending therethrough, and
each of an upper side and a lower side of the second jig member 33 (Shi) has a second incision portion SIP1, SIP2 (fig. 3 of Shi above) extending inwards by a predetermined area and a central part of the second jig member has a second through-hole portion 3311 (fig. 6 of Shi) extending therethrough (¶36 of Shi).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Shi as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Guo et al. (CN 110907839 A, hereinafter Guo).
As to claim 4, Jang teaches wherein the pressing member comprises:
a flat pressing plate FPP (fig. 3 above); and
a pressing element PE (fig. 3 above) protruding from a lower surface of the pressing plate (¶17 teaches a plurality of different pressing elements with different shapes depending on the test subject).
Jang as modified does not teach wherein the pressing element is a pressing cylinder.
Guo teaches wherein a pressing element is a cylinder 221 (fig. 2, ¶43 and ¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jang to have a pressing element that is a cylinder, since such a modification would be a change in the shape of one of Jang’s pressing elements for the predictable result that a battery is still able to be successfully tested.
As to claim 5, Jang as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the pressing cylinder has a hemispherical shape.
Guo further teaches wherein a pressing cylinder 121 has a hemispherical shape (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim; ¶48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jang as modified such that the pressing cylinder has a hemispherical shape as taught by Guo since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the pressing cylinder for the predictable result that battery testing is still successfully carried out.
As to claim 7, Jang as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the pressing cylinder has a diameter that is less than a width of each of the first incision portion and the second incision portion.
Shi further teaches wherein the spacing R between jigs in a lateral direction perpendicular to the thickness of the battery is greater than the width of an impact head 22 to avoid the impact head 22 directly hitting the jigs (¶33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jang as modified such that the spacing between jigs is greater than the width of the impact head as taught by Shi so as to avoid the impact head directly hitting the jigs (¶33 – Shi; additionally or alternatively, such an arrangement ensures that all the force intended for the battery is transferred to the battery, and/or prevents damage to the jigs and/or pressing cylinder).
Jang as modified still does not teach wherein the pressing cylinder has a diameter that is less than a width of each of the first incision portion and the second incision portion.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, Shi teaches that the spacing R between jigs is wider than the impact head to prevent the jigs from interfering with the impact head, meaning that the modified Jang’s jigs would not interfere with the pressing cylinder. In the instant application (¶52-53), if the pressing cylinder is wider than the incisions, then the incisions will interfere with the pressing cylinder such that it cannot fully press down on the battery as intended. Accordingly, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, because the modified Jang already provides for the feature of a spacing that allows for the pressing cylinder to push on the battery without interference from the jig(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dimensions of the incisions in Jang as modified such that the pressing cylinder has a diameter that is less than a width of each of the first incision portion and the second incision portion, since such modification would be mere changes in the dimensions of the incisions for the predictable result that battery testing is still successfully performed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Shi and Guo as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Yao et al. (CN 111504787 A, hereinafter Yao).
As to claim 4, Jang as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the pressing plate has a pair of bent portions extending from an upper surface of the pressing plate in a perpendicular direction by a predetermined length, the bent portions being bent to face each other, the bent portions together defining a receiving space extending between opposite edges of the upper surface of the pressing plate.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BP)]
PNG
media_image5.png
554
504
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yao teaches a testing device that applies an axial force to a specimen 3, the testing device comprising a metal pressing plate 1 (¶65 teaches plate 1 is made of steel composite) comprising bent portions BP (fig. 5 above) forming a receiving space 111 for attachment of the pressing plate 1 (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jang as modified such that the pressing plate is made of steel composite and is configured to be attached via a pair of bent portions forming a receiving space, as taught by Yao, since steel composite is strong and because such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of attaching a pressing plate for another for the predictable result that attachment and detachment are made simple to facilitate maintenance.
Jang as modified teaches wherein the pressing plate has a pair of bent portions BP (Yao) extending from an upper surface of the pressing plate in a perpendicular direction by a predetermined length, the bent portions being bent to face each other, the bent portions together defining a receiving space extending between opposite edges of the upper surface of the pressing plate.
Claim 6 is rejected again below in case Applicant argues that Yao does not teach “bent” portions.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Shi and Guo as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Yao et al. (CN 111504787 A, hereinafter Yao) and Cummings et al. (US 20140096617 A1, hereinafter Cummings).
As to claim 4, Jang as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the pressing plate has a pair of bent portions extending from an upper surface of the pressing plate in a perpendicular direction by a predetermined length, the bent portions being bent to face each other, the bent portions together defining a receiving space extending between opposite edges of the upper surface of the pressing plate.
Yao teaches a testing device that applies an axial force to a specimen 3, the testing device comprising a metal pressing plate 1 (¶65 teaches plate 1 is made of steel composite) comprising bent portions BP (fig. 5 above) forming a receiving space 111 for attachment of the pressing plate 1 (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jang as modified such that the pressing plate is made of steel composite and is configured to be attached via a pair of bent portions forming a receiving space, as taught by Yao, since steel composite is strong and because such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of attaching a pressing plate for another for the predictable result that attachment and detachment are made simple to facilitate maintenance.
Jang as modified teaches wherein the pressing plate has a pair of bent portions BP (Yao) extending from an upper surface of the pressing plate in a perpendicular direction by a predetermined length, the bent portions being bent to face each other, the bent portions together defining a receiving space extending between opposite edges of the upper surface of the pressing plate.
If Applicant argues that Yao does not teach bent portions,
Cummings teaches an apparatus for testing a failure load, comprising metal portions 105 that have angled features formed by bending (¶74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Jang as modified such that the angled portions of the metal pressing plate are formed by bending as taught by Cummings, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of forming bent metal portions for another for the predictable result that battery testing is still successfully performed.
Jang as modified teaches wherein the bent portions are bent portions (in view of Cummings).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230133663 A1 teaches a battery penetration test having jigs with holes in the centers thereof
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights