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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-14, and 21 have been cancelled.
Claims 22-35 have been added.
Claims 15-20, and 22-35 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-16, 19-20, 23, 30-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biswas et al. (US 2020/0321665 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Biswas discloses a method for testing a battery comprising:
Receiving, during a test procedure associated with the battery, a first signal indicative of a first pressure within a force applicator of a testing apparatus, wherein the force applicator is configured to effect a compressive force on the battery based on the first pressure (abstract; method for testing a battery including applying a pressure and measuring a pressure between a transducer and a battery and then adjusting the pressure applied based on the determined pressure; [0010-0013]);
Determining a control signal configured to adjust the compressive force based on the first signal and at least one parameter of the test procedure ([0010-0013] measure, control and adjust the pressure between the transducer and the battery based on the determined pressure readings);
Adjusting the compressive force via the control signal ([0010-0013] measure, control and adjust the pressure between the transducer and the battery based on the determined pressure readings; [0031] adjusting pressure of the battery with adjusting the springs and affects the measurements of signals transmitted and received through the battery); and
Determining an output of the test procedure, wherein the output comprises information associated with an impact of the compressive force on the battery ([0010-0013] measure, control and adjust the pressure between the transducer and the battery based on the determined pressure readings; [0031] adjusting pressure of the battery with adjusting the springs and affects the measurements of signals transmitted and received through the battery; [0079], [0040], [0061-0062] effect of applying pressure and adjustments of pressure relating to the compression and overall battery quality and grading).
Regarding claim 16, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas further discloses wherein the force applicator can be a pneumatic piston ([0047] the spring or arm of the pressure actuator or respective means for applying and adjusting pressure can be done with a piston such as a pneumatic piston see claim 9).
Regarding claim 19, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas further discloses wherein the at least one parameter is a second pressure within the force applicator that is to be maintained through the test procedure (0010-0013] measure, control and adjust the pressure between the transducer and the battery based on the determined pressure readings; [0031] adjusting pressure of the battery with adjusting the springs and affects the measurements of signals transmitted and received through the battery; [0079], [0040], [0061-0062] effect of applying pressure and adjustments of pressure relating to the compression and overall battery quality and grading). Examiner notes that the measuring and adjusting of the pressure can be considered the second pressure that can be maintained throughout the testing process after the initial pressure adjustment.
Regarding claim 20, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas further discloses receiving a second signal indicative of a thickness of the battery, wherein the information associated with the impact includes the thickness of the battery ([0048,0053,0059] pressure of the battery stack has an initial thickness and can disclose and monitor any changes in the thickness during the pressure).
Regarding claim 23, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas further discloses further comprising supplying a fluid comprising at least one of a liquid or a gas to the force applicator form a fluid supply, wherein the compressive force applied to the battery by the force applicator is based on an amount of the fluid supplied to the force applicator ([0047] the spring or arm of the pressure actuator or respective means for applying and adjusting pressure can be done with a piston such as a pneumatic piston or hydraulic piston see claim 9; [0053] means for adjusting pressure can be a pneumatic solenoid/actuator and thus reads on both gas and fluid for controlling the pressure).
Regarding claim 30, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas further discloses comprising applying, via the force applicator, a translation force to the battery in a direction perpendicular to a face of the battery (Figure 2C; the battery cell has multiple faces and thus the pressure being applied will be a translational force that is perpendicular to at least one face of the battery; [0031,0079,0040,0061-0062]).
Regarding claim 31, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas further discloses comprising controlling the force applicator to effect the compressive force on the battery according to a known response of a known material ([0010-0013], [0031,0040,0061-0062,0079] the force provided and experienced by the battery cell will be dependent upon the material used and thus would read on the claim as written as the claim does not provide any further restrictive limitations other than the effect force depends on the material which is known in the art that materials have different compression values/ compression extents).
Regarding claim 34, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas further discloses wherein the first pressure within the force applicator corresponds to an actual compressive force applied to the battery y the force applicator during the test procedure ([0010-0013,0031,0040,0061-0062,0079] the pressure can correspond the compressive force applied to the battery).
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.
Claims 17-18, 27, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Biswas et al. (US 2020/0321665 A1) in view of Obad (US 2024/0154192 A1).
Regarding claim 17, 32 and 35, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas is silent with respect to wherein the at least one parameter is a non-linear representation of force associated with a material, and the desired response of an unknown material.
Obad discloses a battery testing apparatus that is analogous with the instant invention. Obad discloses wherein an actuator device used for providing pressure a battery cell has a pressure sensor that is connected to a computer system to record the pressure profile during the test procedure and record the resulting pressure curve of the battery with the pressure profile being a curve ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan that the pressure measured through the testing procedure results in a non-linear pressure curve as taught by Obad as the pressure profile of a material such as an unknown material or any material would likely have a general non-linear profile that contains a curvature as taught by Obad. Thus it is the examiner’s opinion that the modification would read on the pressure curve being non-linear and can experience a non-linear force based on an unknown material and thus would render obvious the claim limitations of claims 17, 32 and 35. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 18, modified Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 17 and thus would render obvious wherein the non-linear representation of force associated with the material was received prior to initiation of the test procedure as the material property of the material is known and would have been known before the testing procedure. See modification of claim 17.
Regarding claim 27, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas is silent with respect to further controlling a temperature of the battery during the test procedure.
Obad discloses a battery testing apparatus that is analogous with the instant invention. Obad discloses wherein an actuator device used for providing pressure a battery cell has a pressure sensor that is connected to a computer system to record the pressure profile during the test procedure and record the resulting pressure curve of the battery with the pressure profile being a curve ([0057]). Obad further discloses wherein the actuator device may comprise a temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of the battery cell during the battery test to record the temperature profile of the battery and toe prevent explosion, fire, and emissions from the battery ([0055-0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the temperature sensor for monitoring and controlling the temperature during the test procedure to prevent explosions, fire, and emission from the battery as taught by Obad.
Claims 22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Biswas et al. (US 2020/0321665 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bell et al. (US 2023/0097536 A1).
Regarding claims 22 and 24-25, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15, however, is silent with respect to maintaining the compressive force applied to the battery constant throughout the test procedure by decreasing a force applied to the battery in response to swelling of the battery and increasing the force applied to the battery in response to relaxation of the battery, and wherein increasing the compressive force applied to the battery decreases an amount of irreversible swelling of the battery, and monitoring an amplitude of battery swelling.
Bell discloses an apparatus for compressing battery cells in a battery module and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of compressing battery cells. Bell discloses wherein a tensioning mechanism provides force/pressure to a battery cell and starts to deform to maintain a constant force on the battery cells when the battery cells expand over the battery life in order to maintain a constant force on the battery cells ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Bell of the decrease in the force provided by deformation of the tensioning mechanism/wedge when the battery cell expands in order to keep a constant force exerted on the battery cells such that the pressure between the transducer and the battery is constant when swelling of the battery occurs and such that the increase in compressive force applied to the battery decreases an amount of irreversible swelling of the battery due to the constant force provided. The resulting modification would monitor the swelling of the battery and thus would monitor the conditions of the battery cell swelling such as an amplitude or extent of the battery cell swelling. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 22 and 24-25.
Claims 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Biswas et al. (US 2020/0321665 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2021/0111579 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas is silent with respect to determining the control signal comprises determining the control signal based on a proportional-integral-derivative control scheme.
Matsumura discloses an apparatus and method to provide dynamic battery charging and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Matsumura discloses wherein a control scheme to manage states can be a proportional-integral-derivative control scheme and thus this control scheme is known in the art and is common ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to utilize the control scheme of Matsumura of a proportional-integral derivative control scheme to manage states of the battery and testing procedure as taught by Matsumura.
Regarding claim 33, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas is silent with respect to outputting information associated with an impact of the compressive force on the battery during the test procedure.
Matsumura discloses an apparatus and method to provide dynamic battery charging and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Matsumura discloses wherein a control scheme to manage states can be a proportional-integral-derivative control scheme and thus this control scheme is known in the art and is common ([0079]). Matsumura further discloses a display that can be used to output information of the environment of the battery in order to give a user the output data and being able to notify the user ([0055,0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the user friendly display and display output as taught by Matsumura such that the results of the testing procedure can be transmitted and utilized to see the results of the testing procedure. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 33 are rendered obvious through the modification.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Biswas et al. (US 2020/0321665 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jen et al. (US 2001/0036573 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Biswas discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15. Biswas is silent with respect to wherein the at least one parameter of the test procedure comprises a duration for which the compressive force is to be applied to the battery.
Jen discloses a method for manufacturing a battery having a pressing process and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Jen discloses wherein a pressing process for a manufacturing method of a battery can include pressing at a specific duration to achieve desirable effects form the pressing ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan that the method of Biswas as be done over a specific duration for monitoring the cell as compressing the cell is done over time and thus would render obvious wherein pressing can be done over time as taught by Jen. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 29 are rendered obvious as pressing can be done over time. Examiner notes that no specific time is being claimed just that compression can happen over time and thus Biswas and Jen render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the independent claim 15 limitation wherein “receiving, during a test procedure associated with the battery, a first signal indicative of a first pressure within a force applicator of a testing apparatus, wherein the force applicator is configured to effect a compressive force on the battery based on the first pressure”. Applicant argues that Biswas fails to teach nor render obvious the limitation as Biswas merely shows or teaches a battery testing system within holder system includes a pressure applying device that applies pressure to the at least one transducer, to control pressure between the at least one transducer and the battery, adjusts the pressure applied to the at least one transducer based on the determined pressure and thus fails to teach wherein the force applicator is configured to effect a compressive force on the battery based on the first pressure. This argument is noted, however, is not found to be persuasive as the claim merely states the force can be configured to effect a compressive force on the battery based on the first pressure and thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation is that the pressure can be adjusted/adjustable as this would be configured to effect a compressive force on the battery based on the initial pressure. The rejection of record relies upon [0010-0013] of Biswas that states that the pressure can be controlled between the battery and the transducer and thus would be “configured to adjust the pressure on the battery” and thus would read on the claim limitations as written. Examiner notes the breadth of the claims as the claim limitation just states “configured to” language and a broad function of effecting a compressive force on the battery based on the pressure without stating or explaining how to achieve the different compressive force based on the first pressure. There is no indication within the claims that would explain how the compressive force is adjusted based on the pressure and thus the arguments are not found to be persuasive in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as written.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is 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 prior art fails to teach nor render obvious wherein a battery testing method for battery wherein the method comprising monitoring an amplitude of battery swelling over time and utilizing monitoring of the amplitude of battery swelling and relaxation to mitigate effects of irreversible swelling of the battery. The prior art fails to teach nor render obvious the limitation of claim 26. A skilled artisan would have no teaching, motivation, nor suggestion to modify the methods of the prior art to obtain the claimed invention.
Biwas discloses an modular adaptable holder for sensor for battery cells for physical analysis, however, fails to disclose wherein utilizing monitoring of the amplitude of battery swelling and relaxation to mitigate effects of irreversible swelling of the battery as claimed.
Bell discloses an apparatus for compressing battery cells in a battery module and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of compressing battery cells. Bell discloses wherein a tensioning mechanism provides force/pressure to a battery cell and starts to deform to maintain a constant force on the battery cells when the battery cells expand over the battery life in order to maintain a constant force on the battery cells ([0027]). Bell fails to teach nor render obvious wherein the monitoring the amplitude of the battery swelling and realization is used to mitigate effects of irreversible swelling of the battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perera et al. (US 2023/0124344 A1)- discloses a clamping device and interface for an electrochemical cell stack.
Wang (US 2021/0318384 A1)- discloses a testing system for safe operating window of lithium ion battery in squeezed state and testing method thereof.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights