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 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.
Claims 1-3 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.
Claims 1 & 3 recite “a reaction” and “the reaction” (claim 1 line 7 and claim 3, lines 2-3). In the instant application, it is not clear what is meant by this recitation, for example what type of reaction (chemical, mechanical, physical) and what specific reaction applicant intended to recite. While the specification refers to the “reaction” throughout, the specification does not provide any additional description of what is meant by “reaction”. For example, [0030] specifies that “the thickness of the all-solid-state cell including the positive electrode layer 12 and the negative electrode layer 14 increases at a position where the reaction is uneven during charging or discharging of the battery pack 1”, but does not specify what the reaction is. Similarly, [0036] describes that “a variation (unevenness) occurs in the contact surface between the members depending on the structure of each constituent member, so that the reaction may become uneven in some cases” but does not specify what the reaction is. In [0050] where the specification states “the control device 100 determines that there is a portion where the reaction is uneven when there is a portion of the plurality of detection points where the surface pressure is higher than the other portions”, the specification does not set forth what “the reaction” is specifically that is causing the pressure measured by some detection points to be higher.
As such, “a reaction” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art what such recitation aims to portray. Therefore claims 1-3 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement as all the claims contain the recitation of “a reaction”.
Additionally, dependent claim 2 is rejected as a result of its dependence on rejected claim 1, as they include all the limitations of claim 1 and they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above
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 1-3 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 1 recites the limitation “a stack of the all-solid-state cells” in lines 3-4 and “the all-solid state cells” in lines 4 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested correction is “a stack of the plurality of all-solid-state cells” and “the plurality of all-solid-state cells”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the all-solid state cells” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested correction is “the plurality of all-solid-state cells”.
Additionally, dependent claim 3 are rejected as a result of its dependence on indefinite claim 1, as they include all the limitations of claim 1 and they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Yamamoto (JP 2019169453 A; see machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a battery pack (battery pack 1, [0014] & Figures 1 & 3), comprising: a plurality of all-solid-state cells (single cell 10, Fig. 1 shows plurality of single cells 10 and [0014] – [0015] describes that single cell 10 is an all-solid-state battery); and a restraining unit (restraining mechanism 20, [0014] & Figures 1 & 3) configured to apply a restraining pressure to a stack of the all-solid-state cells in a stacking direction in which the all-solid state cells are stacked (see Fig. 1 and [0014] which describes that restraining mechanism 20 restrains individual cells 10 which are arranged in a predetermined arrangement direction Z), wherein the restraining unit (restraining mechanism 20, [0014] & Figures 1 & 3) includes a partially pressing unit (first insertion member 26c, second insertion member 26d, third insertion member 26e, [0057] & Figure 5-6) configured to press part of a contact surface with the stack in the stacking direction (see [0058] which describes that the insertion member 26 exerts a pressing force on the battery stack) in such a manner that the restraining pressure in a portion where a reaction is uneven in at least one of the all-solid-state cells increases (see [0007]-[0008] which describes that a constraint pressure on the single cell by the restraining mechanism increases in the direction moving away from the side closer to the external terminals wherein uneven reaction occurs moving away from the side having the external terminals due to cell current density decreasing in the direction moving away from the external terminal).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the partially pressing unit (first insertion member 26c, second insertion member 26d, third insertion member 26e, [0057] & Figure 6) is disposed in such a manner that the partially pressing unit (first insertion member 26c, second insertion member 26d, third insertion member 26e, [0057] & Figure 6) is able to press part of the contact surface that is close to a terminal (external connection terminal 16, [0031] & Figure 3) of the all-solid-state cell (single cell 10, [0014] – [0015]) (see Figure 6 which shows first insertion member of insertion member 26 located on the side where external connection terminal 16 is located in the single cell 10).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto teaches all of the limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the partially pressing unit (first insertion member 26c, second insertion member 26d, third insertion member 26e, [0057] & Figure 6) is configured to increase the restraining pressure in a section including the portion where the reaction is uneven out of a plurality of sections into which the stack is divided in the stacking direction (see [0007] which describes that reaction becomes uneven in the direction moving away from the external terminals and further see [0008] which describes that the spring constant of the insertion member increases moving away from the first direction wherein the first direction is described as the direction which the external terminals protrude. [0063] further describes that as the spring constant increases moving away from the electrode terminal, the constraint pressure applied to the multiple single cells 10 increases accordingly).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIKI V OWHOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-3418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712725453. 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.
/F.V.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights