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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted August 7, 2024, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen (CN115133202A).
With regard to Claim 1, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2, a pressure management system comprising: a pressure plate, called a base (3), disposed at an initial position relative to a battery cell, called a battery body (11), the battery cell (11) disposed in a housing, called a battery box (1), wherein expansion of the battery cell (11) inherently causes an expansion force, or pressure, to be applied to the pressure plate (3); a mechanical linkage, including a horizontal rod (9) and a connecting rod (10), attached to the pressure plate (3), the mechanical linkage (9, 10) configured to move in a lateral direction in response to the expansion force, or pressure, and translate the expansion force to a reactive force that is opposed to the expansion force; and a biasing system, including a spring piece (13), electric telescopic rod (19), a push plate (20) and an electric pressure relief valve (21), in which a biasing member, or push plate (20), configured to resist a lateral movement of the mechanical linkage (9, 10), the biasing system (13, 19, 20, 21) configured to apply a biasing force in a direction opposite the lateral direction, the biasing force causing the mechanical linkage (9, 10) to apply the reactive force as a selected proportion of the expansion force, or pressure, before and until a controller (16) controls the electric telescopic rod (19) to extend and drive the push plate (20) to move upward (paragraphs 0037, 0046-0049).
The recitations, “configured to move in a lateral direction in response to the expansion force and translate the expansion force to a reactive force that is opposed to the expansion force”; “configured to resist a lateral movement of the mechanical linkage”; and, “configured to apply a biasing force in a direction opposite the lateral direction”, are considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 2, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2, wherein the biasing member (20), including spring piece (13), has a spring constant selected so that the biasing force causes the reactive force to be the selected proportion of the expansion force, or pressure (See Examples 1-2, paragraphs 0036-0041, 0047).
The recitation, “causes the reactive force to be the selected proportion of the expansion force”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 3, Wen further discloses in Figures 1-2, a stop component, called a second spring (5), configured to restrict the lateral movement of the mechanical linkage (9, 10), the reactive force generated based on the stop component (5) causing a portion of a lateral force generated by the mechanical linkage (9, 10) to be directed toward the battery cell (11) (paragraph 0047).
The recitations, “configured to restrict the lateral movement of the mechanical linkage” and “causing a portion of a lateral force generated by the mechanical linkage to be directed toward the battery cell”, are considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 5, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2 and annotated figure, wherein the mechanical linkage (9, 10) includes a pivot member having a first end and a second end, the first end attached to the pressure plate (3) at a first pivot point, the pivot member configured to rotate about a fixed pivot point, the fixed pivot point located between the first end and the second end, the fixed pivot point having a fixed position relative to the housing (See Examples 1-2, paragraphs 0036-0041, 0047).
The recitation, “the pivot member configured to rotate about a fixed pivot point”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
188
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 6, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2 and annotated figure, wherein the mechanical linkage (9, 10) includes a linking member having a third end and a fourth end, the third end connected to the second end by a second pivot point, the fourth end moveable in the lateral direction (See Examples 1-2, paragraphs 0036-0041, 0047).
With regard to Claim 7, Wen further discloses in Figures 1-2, a bias control device, called an electric telescopic rod (19), configured to be operated to adjust the biasing force of the biasing member (20) (paragraph 0047).
The recitation, “configured to be operated to adjust the biasing force of the biasing member”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 9, Wen discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, a method of controlling a pressure of a battery cell, called a battery body (11), comprising: receiving an expansion force, or pressure, at a pressure plate, called a base (3), disposed at an initial position relative to the battery cell (11), the battery cell (11) disposed in a housing, called a battery box (1), the expansion force, or pressure, resulting from expansion of the battery cell (11); and managing a pressure of the battery cell (11) by a pressure management system including a mechanical linkage, including a horizontal rod (9) and a connecting rod (10), attached to the pressure plate (3) and a biasing system, including a spring piece (13), electric telescopic rod (19), a push plate (20) and an electric pressure relief valve (21), in which a biasing member, or push plate (20) (See Examples 1-2, paragraphs 0036-0041), wherein managing the pressure includes: translating the expansion force to a reactive force based on a lateral movement of the mechanical linkage (9, 10) in a lateral direction, the reactive force configured to oppose the expansion force; and controlling the reactive force based on resisting the lateral movement of the mechanical linkage (9, 10) by the biasing system (13, 19, 20, 21), the biasing system (13, 19, 20, 21) applying a biasing force via the biasing member (20) in a direction opposite the lateral direction, the biasing force causing the mechanical linkage (9, 10) to apply the reactive force as a selected proportion of the expansion force, before and until a controller (16) controls the electric telescopic rod (19) to extend and drive the push plate (20) to move upward (paragraph 0047).
With regard to Claim 10, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2, wherein the pressure management system includes a stop component, called a second spring (5), configured to restrict the lateral movement of the mechanical linkage (9, 10), the reactive force generated based on the stop component (5) causing a portion of a lateral force generated by the mechanical linkage (9, 10) to be directed toward the battery cell (3) (paragraph 0047).
With regard to Claim 12, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2 and the annotated figure, wherein the mechanical linkage (9, 10) includes a pivot member having a first end and a second end, the first end attached to the pressure plate (3) at a first pivot point, the pivot member configured to rotate about a fixed pivot point, the fixed pivot point located between the first end and the second end, the fixed pivot point having a fixed position relative to the housing (See Examples 1-2, paragraphs 0036-0041, 0047).
With regard to Claim 13, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2 and the annotated figure, wherein the mechanical linkage (9, 10) includes a linking member having a third end and a fourth end, the third end connected to the second end by a second pivot point, the fourth end moveable in the lateral direction.
With regard to Claim 14, Wen further discloses adjusting the biasing force of the biasing member (20) by operating a bias control device, called an electric telescopic rod (19) (paragraph 0047).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (CN115133202A), as applied Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12-14 above.
With regard to Claim 4, Wen discloses the system in paragraph 6 above, including wherein the biasing member (20) includes a spring piece (13) (See Examples 1-2). Wen does not specifically disclose wherein the spring has a first end configured to be coupled to the mechanical linkage, and a second end connected to the stop component. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the spring to have a first end configured to be coupled to the mechanical linkage, and a second end connected to the stop component, since it has been held in the art that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI).
With regard to Claim 11, Wen discloses the method in paragraph 6 above, including wherein the biasing member (20) includes a spring piece (13) (See Examples 1-2). Wen does not specifically disclose wherein the spring has a first end configured to engage the mechanical linkage and a second end connected to the stop component. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the spring to have a first end configured to engage the mechanical linkage, and a second end connected to the stop component, since it has been held in the art that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI).
11. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (CN115133202A), as applied Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 12-14 above, and in further view of Rogers (US 2018/0201319 A1).
With regard to Claim 8, Wen discloses the system in paragraph 6 above, including the bias control device being an electric telescopic rod (19) (paragraphs 0038, 0047), but does not specifically disclose wherein the bias control device includes a pinion gear coupled to a linear gear, the pinion gear connected to an actuator, the actuator configured to rotate the pinion gear to adjust the biasing force.
Rogers discloses in Figures 13A-13H, an electrochemical apparatus for controlling vehicle suspension settings, including a telescoping rod portion (1381) configured to extend or retract by using a linear actuator, for example, a ball screw (1353) and a ball nut, that is acted upon by the electromechanical actuator, such as gears (1359). Rogers discloses wherein the electromechanical actuator is coupled to the telescoping arm through the ball screw and ball nut, and drives rotation of the telescoping arm to extend or retract the telescoping arm relative to the tie rod, thereby adjusting a biasing force (paragraphs 0135-0136). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bias control device in the system of Wen to include a pinion gear coupled to a linear gear, the pinion gear connected to an actuator, the actuator configured to rotate the pinion gear to adjust the biasing force, because Rogers teaches that this configuration of telescopic rods in known in the art and is helpful in adjusting a biasing force (paragraphs 0135-0136).
With regard to Claim 15, Wen discloses the system in paragraph 6 above, including the bias control device being an electric telescopic rod (19) (paragraphs 0038, 0047), but does not specifically disclose wherein the bias control device includes a pinion gear coupled to a linear gear, the pinion gear connected to an actuator, and controlling the reactive force includes controlling the actuator to rotate the pinion gear to adjust the biasing force.
Rogers discloses in Figures 13A-13H, an electrochemical apparatus for controlling vehicle suspension settings, including a telescoping rod portion (1381) configured to extend or retract by using a linear actuator, for example, a ball screw (1353) and a ball nut, that is acted upon by the electromechanical actuator, such as gears (1359). Rogers discloses wherein the electromechanical actuator is coupled to the telescoping arm through the ball screw and ball nut, and drives rotation of the telescoping arm to extend or retract the telescoping arm relative to the tie rod, thereby adjusting a biasing force (paragraphs 0135-0136). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bias control device in the system of Wen to include a pinion gear coupled to a linear gear, the pinion gear connected to an actuator, and controlling the reactive force includes controlling the actuator to rotate the pinion gear to adjust the biasing force, because Rogers teaches that this configuration of telescopic rods in known in the art and is helpful in adjusting a biasing force (paragraphs 0135-0136).
12. Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (CN115133202A) in view of Hagi et al. (US 2021/0268975 A1).
With regard to Claim 16, Wen discloses in Figures 1A, 1B and 2, a battery system, called sodium batteries, including a battery cell, called a battery body (11), disposed in a housing, called a battery box (1); and a pressure management system including a pressure plate, called a base (3), disposed at an initial position relative to the battery cell (11), wherein expansion of the battery cell (11) causes an expansion force to be applied to the pressure plate (3); a mechanical linkage, including a horizontal rod (9) and a connecting rod (10), attached to the pressure plate (3), the mechanical linkage (9, 10) configured to move in a lateral direction in response to the expansion force, or pressure, and translate the expansion force to a reactive force that is opposed to the expansion force; and a biasing system, including a spring piece (13), electric telescopic rod (19), a push plate (20) and an electric pressure relief valve (21), in which a biasing member, or push plate (20), configured to resist a lateral movement of the mechanical linkage (9, 10), the biasing system (13, 19, 20, 21) configured to apply a biasing force in a direction opposite the lateral direction, the biasing force causing the mechanical linkage (9, 10) to apply the reactive force as a selected proportion of the expansion force, or pressure, before and until a controller (16) controls the electric telescopic rod (19) to extend and drive the push plate (20) to move upward (paragraphs 0037, 0046-0049). Wen does not specifically disclose a vehicle system comprising: a battery system connected to an electric motor of a vehicle.
Hagi et al. disclose in Figures 1-2, a power source system (10) mounted in a vehicle (12) that supplies power from a battery box (14) to auxiliary equipment (20) and a travel system (22) via a branch circuit (17) of a branch box (16) provided outside of the battery box (14) (paragraph 0017), wherein the travel system (22) includes an electric motor (paragraph 0008). Before the effective fling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art o modify the battery system of Wen to be a part of a vehicle system comprising a battery system connected to an electric motor of a vehicle, because Hagi et al. teach that this arrangement causes the vehicle to travel and operate (paragraph 0008).
The recitations, “configured to move in a lateral direction in response to the expansion force and translate the expansion force to a reactive force that is opposed to the expansion force”; “configured to resist a lateral movement of the mechanical linkage”; and, “configured to apply a biasing force in a direction opposite the lateral direction”, are considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 17, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2, wherein the biasing member (20), including spring piece (13), has a spring constant selected so that the biasing force causes the reactive force to be the selected proportion of the expansion force, or pressure (See Examples 1-2, paragraphs 0036-0041, 0047).
The recitation, “causes the reactive force to be the selected proportion of the expansion force”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 18, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2, wherein the pressure management system includes a stop component, called a second spring (5), configured to restrict the lateral movement of the mechanical linkage (9, 10), the reactive force generated based on the stop component (5) causing a portion of a lateral force generated by the mechanical linkage (9, 10) to be directed toward the battery cell (11) (paragraph 0047).
The recitations, “configured to restrict the lateral movement of the mechanical linkage” and “causing a portion of a lateral force generated by the mechanical linkage to be directed toward the battery cell”, are considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 20, Wen discloses in Figures 1-2, wherein the pressure management system includes a bias control device, called an electric telescopic rod (19), configured to be operated to adjust the biasing force of the biasing member (20) (paragraph 0047).
The recitation, “configured to be operated to adjust the biasing force of the biasing member”, is considered functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
13. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (CN115133202A) in view of Zhou et al. (CN109353204A), as applied to Claims 16-18 and 20 above.
With regard to Claim 19, Wen and Zhou et al. disclose the vehicle system in paragraph 12 above, including wherein the biasing member (20) includes a spring piece (13) (See Examples 1-2 of Wen). Neither Wen nor Zhou et al. specifically disclose wherein the biasing member is a spring having a first end configured to be coupled to the mechanical linkage, and a second end connected to the stop component. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the spring to have a first end configured to be coupled to the mechanical linkage, and a second end connected to the stop component, since it has been held in the art that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725