CTNF 18/509,895 CTNF 101841 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 1 : “ a pressurizing mechanism configured to pressurize an all- solid-state battery and adjust a pressure applied to the all- solid-state battery…” “ a driving device configured to drive the pressurizing mechanism…” Claim 2 : “ the movable plate configured to be movable by the driving device…” “ a guide unit configured to guide the movable plate…” Claim 3 : “ two pressurizing plates configured to pressurize the all-solid-state battery…” “ a driving device configured to drive the pressurizing mechanism…” Claim 4 : “ a fluid control device configured to control fluid supply and discharge…” Claim 5 : “ a first delivery device installed in the fluid supply line and configured to supply the fluid to the cylinder body…” “ the first delivery device configured to be driven by the controller…” “ a first valve installed in the fluid supply line and configured to perform opening and closing operations” “ a second valve installed in the fluid discharge line and configured to perform opening and closing operations” Claim 6 : “ a second delivery device provided in the fluid discharge line and configured to suck in and discharge the fluid…” Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In particular: For claim 1, the recited function of the pressurizing mechanism is to pressurize an all-solid-state battery and to adjust the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery, and the function of the driving device is to drive the pressurizing mechanism. These limitations are interpreted to cover the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification in [0032] and [0033], and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure for the pressurizing mechanism includes a fixed plate, a movable plate, and a guide unit along guide rods (or two pressurizing plates); the driving device corresponds to a cylinder mechanism for controlling the forward and backward movement of the piston according to a control signal output from the controller such that the cylinder mechanism may allow one of the two pressurizing plates moving the piston forward and backward when adjusting and changing the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery. In addition, the driving device further includes a fluid control device that controls the supply and discharge of fluid to the cylinder mechanism in order to control the forward and backward movement of the piston. For claim 2 , the recited function of the movable plate is to be movable by the driving device, and the function of the guide unit is to guide the movable plate. The corresponding structure for the movable plate includes movable plate 113 which is installed to be movable along a guide part installed on a pedestal, where the moveable plate moves along the guide part while disposed above the all-solid-state battery to pressurize the upper surface of the all-solid-state battery in [0071]; the guide unit corresponds to a guide part 114 that may include a plurality of guide rods installed to vertically extend on a pedestal in [0072]. Accordingly, the movable plate may move up and down along the longitudinal direction of the guide rod(s), recited in [0073]). For claim 3 , the recited function of the two pressurizing plates is to pressurize the all solid-state battery, and the function of the driving device is to drive the pressurizing mechanism. The corresponding structure for the two pressurizing plates includes pressurizing plates 112 and 113 disposed on both sides of the all-solid-state battery interposed therebetween ([0064]) such that one is a fixed plate 112 fixedly positioned, and the other is a movable plate 113 installed to be movable up and down ([0068]) ; the driving device corresponds to a cylinder mechanism for controlling the forward and backward movement of the piston according to a control signal output from the controller such that the cylinder mechanism may allow one of the two pressurizing plates moving the piston forward and backward when adjusting and changing the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery. In addition, the driving device further includes a fluid control device that controls the supply and discharge of fluid to the cylinder mechanism in order to control the forward and backward movement of the piston. For claim 4, the recited function of the fluid control device is to control fluid supply and discharge. The corresponding structure for the fluid control device is interpreted as fluid control device 124, which includes a pressure gauge [0096)] and a fluid supply line and a fluid discharge line connected to a cylinder mechanism to supply and discharge fluid ([0090]) . Further, when the fluid is supplied into the cylinder mechanism, the piston pushes the movable plate forwards or backwards to adjust the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery ([0094]-[0095]) . For claim 5, the recited function of the first delivery device installed in the fluid supply line is to control fluid supply and discharge to supply the fluid to the cylinder body and to be driven by the controller. The corresponding structure for the first delivery device is interpreted as first delivery device 127 that supplies the fluid stored in the first storage unit to the cylinder mechanism through the fluid a supply line ([0099]) such that the first delivery device 127 may be a pump whose driving is controlled according to a control signal from a controller ([0100]) . The recited function of the first valve installed in the fluid supply line and the second valve installed in the fluid discharge line is to perform opening and closing operations. The corresponding structures for the first and second valves are interpreted as first valve 126 and a second valve 130 for opening and closing the flow path of the corresponding fluid supply and discharge lines ([0091]) . Further, the first and second valves are electronic valves whose opening and closing operations are controlled according to a control signal output from the controller ([0091]) . For claim 6 : the recited function of the second delivery device provided in the fluid discharge line is to suck in and discharge the fluid. The corresponding structure for the second delivery device is interpreted as second delivery device 131, which may be a pump whose driving is controlled according to a control signal from the controller and sucks fluid through the fluid discharge line during operation, and through this, the fluid in the main cylinder body of the cylinder mechanism is discharged to the fluid discharge line ([0102]-[0103]) . If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specification The specification is objected to because of a lack of correspondence between the description and the claims. In [0072], the specification recites " the guide part 114 may include a plurality of guide rods 114A installed to vertically extend on the pedestal 111," whereas claim 2 recites " a guide unit configured to guide the movable plate to move along guide rods." Therefore, the specification is objected to because the use of the term “guide unit” in the instant claim is inconsistent with the “guide part” described in the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The following instances lack proper introduction using an article (e.g., “a” or “an”): Claim 4, line 2 recites the limitation "fluid supply" Claim 5, line 5 recites the limitation "the fluid" The limitation(s) above should be introduced with an appropriate article (e.g. “the fluid supply”, “a fluid”, etc.) so that when these elements are referred to in later claims it is clear that the reference is to the respective portions of claims 4 and 5 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-13 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the claim also recites “a pressurizing system” in line 1, it is unclear whether these refer to the same component. Appropriate correction may include amending “the system” to “the pressurizing system,” if that is what is intended. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the system” is interpreted as being “the pressurizing system” as recited in instant claim 1, pending further clarification from applicant. Accordingly, claims 2-13 are rejected by dependency because they depend on claim 1 , which lacks proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the system,” as described above. Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “a guide unit configured to guide the movable plate to move along guide rods” in lines 9-10 of the claim. However, the claim(s) do not first introduce the guide rods with an indefinite article (e.g., "a plurality of guide rods", "a guide rod", or "at least one guide rod"). Because the term "guide rods" is not properly introduced in the claim(s), it is unclear whether the claim is limited to a specific number of guide rods or a particular arrangement. In addition, the term "guide unit" is not consistently used in the specification as discussed above, where the specification refers to a "guide part" in [0072] such that “the guide part 114 may include a plurality of guide rods 114A installed to vertically extend on the pedestal 111.” While the specification ([0072]) and figures (Fig. 3 and Figs. 5A and 5B) may indicate two rods, the claim must be self-contained to clearly define the boundaries of the invention. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction regarding the lack of antecedent basis may include amending “a guide unit configured to guide the movable plate to move along guide rods” to “a guide unit configured to guide the movable plate to move along a plurality (or pair) of guide rods,” if that is what is intended. Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10, claim 1 (line 14) and claim 10 (line 1) state that the controller is configured to control pressure based on “state information.” However, claim 7 (line 8) recites “pressure state information.” It is unclear whether the “state information” recited in claims 1 and 10 is intended to correspond to the “pressure state information” recited in claim 7, or whether “state information” encompasses a broader or different category of information. Accordingly, the scope of the claims is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “state information” is interpreted as being “pressure state information,” pending further clarification from applicant. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nanbu (US20220336851A1) . Regarding claim 1, and consistent with the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above, Nanbu teaches: A pressurizing system for an all-solid-state battery (Nanbu, claim 1), the system comprising: a pressurizing mechanism configured to pressurize an all- solid-state battery and adjust a pressure applied to the all- solid-state battery; (Nanbu, pressurizer and processor; claim 1) a driving device configured to drive the pressurizing mechanism (Nanbu, pressurizer 3; [0018]) ; and a controller configured to control the driving device so that the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery by the pressurizing mechanism is adjustable and variable (Nanbu, processor 7; [0018]) , wherein when the all-solid-state battery is charged or discharged, the controller is configured to control the driving device according to a pressure change rate determined based on state information of the all-solid-state battery so that the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery is adjusted and varied according to the pressure change rate (Nanbu, the processor 7 obtains state of charge (SOC) information and adjusts the pressure applied to the all solid state battery accordingly via the pressurizer 3; [0035] and [0037]) . Regarding claim 12, Nanbu teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, and further teaches the pressure change rate is defined as a rate at which the pressure changes with respect to a state of charge (SOC) value representing a state of charge of the all-solid-state battery during charging or discharging of the all-solid-state battery. In particular, Nanbu teaches a battery pressure management system and controller comprising a fluid pressure gauge and processor (Nanbu, processor 7 obtains pressure information of the fluid F from the pressure gauge PG, [0035]) . In addition, Nanbu discloses that the processor may, for example, control the pressurizer to increase the pressure for the battery device in a continuous or stepwise manner, as the SOC of the all-solid-state battery decreases to prevent interface gaps during charging or discharging (Nanbu, [0037]) . Further, Nanbu also states the pressure control for the all-solid-state battery is, for example, executed on the basis of the SOC of the all-solid-state battery (Nanbu, [0035] lines 28-39). Since the controller of Nanbu adjusts pressure as a function of decreasing SOC (i.e. changing pressure relative to a change in SOC value) using feedback from a fluid pressure gauge, Nanbu inherently discloses a controller utilizing a defined "pressure change rate" with respect to a SOC value during charging/discharging. The claimed "rate" is merely a description of the functional relationship between the pressure and SOC already taught by Nanbu. Therefore, Nanbu provides a teaching of a controller regulating a pressure change rate relative to the SOC during charging or discharging, anticipating the claimed limitation . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanbu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ose (US20150134172A1) and Gravely (US4151718A) . Regarding claim 2, and consistent with the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above, Nanbu teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a processor-controlled system for solid-state batteries that uses a fluid-filled housing and a pressurizer to adjust pressure based on the state of charge (SOC) of the battery as described above. However, Nanbu does not disclose a pressurizing mechanism comprising: a fixed plate fixedly positioned, a movable plate provided to pressurize the all-solid-state battery disposed between the fixed plate and the movable plate, the movable plate configured to be movable by the driving device to adjust and vary the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery nor a guide unit configured to guide the movable plate to move along guide rods. Gravely teaches a controller device for use with a hydraulic press having a fluid pressure system “for making plywood and the like” ( Gravely, claim 1) . While Gravely is for a “plywood press”, it constitutes analogous art because it addresses the same problem of pressure management and regulation. Furthermore, the preamble “a controller device for... plywood and the like' is merely an intended use that does not physically limit the claimed structure of the controller device (MPEP §2112) (Gravely , pg. 10, column 4, lines 19-30) . Gravely additionally states that the controller system may be usable with many other type systems involving hydraulic, pneumatic, or fluid-type pressure systems (Gravely , pg. 10, column 3, lines 15-29) . Accordingly, Gravely discloses: a fixed plate ( Gravely, fixed platen 14), a movable plate ( Gravely, moveable or thrust platen 16) provided to pressurize the all-solid-state battery disposed between the fixed plate and the movable plate ( Gravely, pg. 10, column 4, lines 19-30), and wherein the movable plate is configured to be movable by the driving device to adjust and vary the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery (Gravely, thrust platen 16 is actuated hydraulically by means of the driving device, which is the piston rod 18 connected to piston 20 within hydraulic cylinder 22; pg. 10 column 4 lines 31-41); However, Gravely does not teach the fourth claimed limitation, a guide unit configured to guide the movable plate to move along guide rods. Ose teaches a charging system for an all-solid-state battery comprising a charging section that charges an all-solid-state battery, a pressing section that applies confining pressure to the all-solid-state battery, and a pressure control section that controls the confining pressure, wherein the pressure control section directs the pressing section so that the confining pressure during charging is higher than the confining pressure during discharging (Ose, [0039]) . Specifically, Ose teaches a fixed plate (Ose, confining jig 8; [0041]; Fig. 1), in addition to the fourth claimed limitation, a guide unit configured to guide a movable plate to move along guide rods (Ose, guide shafts 9; [0044]; Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery control system of Nanbu (hereby referred to as “modified Nanbu”) to include the fixed plate, moveable plate, and driving device system of Gravely in combination with the guide unit of Ose to provide an overall guided pressure management system for a battery. The combination would yield the predictable result of a hydraulic press system suitable for batteries which uses guide rods for alignment and comprises a driven, movable plate for controllable battery pressure based on the state of charge (SOC) of the battery. Thus, it would have been a matter of routine mechanical design choice and engineering to use the guide unit configuration of Ose in the hydraulic press system of Gravely within the context of the all-solid-state battery control system of Nanbu , as the combination is a simple substitution of known elements to enhance the functionality of a similar pressure control system suitable for a battery . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanbu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gravely (US4151718A) . Regarding claim 3, and consistent with the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above, Nanbu teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a processor-controlled system for solid-state batteries that uses a fluid-filled housing and a pressurizer to adjust pressure based on the state of charge (SOC) of the battery as described above. However, Nanbu does not disclose a pressurizing mechanism wherein: the pressurizing mechanism comprises two pressurizing plates configured to pressurize the all-solid-state battery disposed therebetween, the driving device comprises a cylinder mechanism with a piston controlled to move back and forth according to a control signal sent from the controller, and the cylinder mechanism allows one of the two pressurizing plates to move according to a back-and-forth movement of the piston when adjusting and varying the pressure for pressurizing the all-solid-state battery. Gravely teaches a controller device for use with a hydraulic press having a fluid pressure system “for making plywood and the like” ( Gravely, claim 1) . While Gravely is for a plywood press, it constitutes analogous art because it addresses the same problem of pressure regulation. Furthermore, the preamble in claim 1, “a controller device for... plywood and the like' is merely an intended use that does not physically limit the claimed structure of the controller device (MPEP §2112) (Gravely , pg. 10, column 4, lines 19-30) . Gravely additionally states that the controller system may be usable with many other type systems involving hydraulic, pneumatic, or fluid-type pressure systems (Gravely , pg. 10, column 3, lines 15-29) . Accordingly, Gravely discloses: the pressurizing mechanism (Gravely, pressurizing mechanism is controller unit/control panel 12 that controls the hydraulic pumps, valves, pistons, cylinder, and press structure; pg. 10 column 4 lines 67-68 through pg. 11 column 5 lines 1-6) comprises two pressurizing plates configured to pressurize the all-solid-state battery disposed therebetween ( Gravely, fixed platen 14 and thrust platen 16; Fig. 2) , the driving device (Gravely, hydraulic pump and motor, pg. 9, column 2, lines 4-5) comprises a cylinder mechanism with a piston (Gravely, piston 20 within hydraulic cylinder 22; Fig. 2) controlled to move back-and-forth according to a control signal sent from the controller (Gravely, controller unit/control panel 12 controls the driving device, which includes the piston 20 within hydraulic cylinder 22 and hydraulic pump(s) and motor; pg. 10, column 4, lines 31-41; hydraulic pump and motor, pg. 9, column 2, lines 4-5; Fig. 2) , and the cylinder mechanism allows one of the two pressurizing plates to move according to a back-and-forth movement of the piston when adjusting and varying the pressure for pressurizing the all-solid-state battery (Gravely, thrust platen 16 is actuated hydraulically by means of the driving device, which comprises the piston 20 within hydraulic cylinder 22 and a hydraulic pump and motor; pg. 10, column 4, lines 31-41; hydraulic pump and motor, pg. 9, column 2, lines 4-5; overall press system in Fig. 2) . Regarding the limitation “…to control the back-and-forth movement [of the piston]” in limitations (2) and (3) regarding the driving device and cylinder mechanisms listed above, this is inherently met by Gravely. The hydraulic cylinder (controlled by the controller) in Gravely causes the platen to move between “open and closed positions” (Gravely, pg. 10 column 4 lines 31-38). By definition, moving between two distinct positions (open and closed) requires the hydraulic piston to reciprocate (move back-and-forth). Therefore, managing the supply and discharge of hydraulic fluid to achieve the 'open/closed' state inherently controls the claimed “back-and-forth movement” of the piston, as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery control system of Nanbu (hereby referred to as “modified Nanbu”) to incorporate the two-plate, hydraulic press system of Gravely. Specifically, utilizing the cylinder, piston, and controller of Gravely to drive at least one plate back and forth for pressure adjustment would have been a routine substitution of elements to provide controllable, fluid-based pressure suitable for a battery pressure management system. Additionally, the combination would have yielded the predictable result of a hydraulic battery pressure management system comprising a driven, movable plate, for controllable pressure. Thus, it would be a simple substitution of known elements to enhance the functionality of a similar pressure control system. Regarding claim 4, and consistent with the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above, modified Nanbu teaches all features of claim 3 as described above, but does not expressly disclose a pressurizing mechanism wherein the driving device further comprises a fluid control device configured to control fluid supply and discharge to and from the cylinder mechanism to control the back-and-forth movement of the piston. Gravely teaches a driving device comprising a fluid control device (Gravely, driving device includes fluid control via the piston 20 within hydraulic cylinder 22, hydraulic pump(s), and motor; pg. 10, column 4, lines 31-41; hydraulic pump and motor, pg. 9, column 2, lines 4-5; overall press system in Fig. 2) , configured to control fluid supply and discharge to and from the cylinder mechanism to control the back-and-forth movement of the piston. Further, Gravely discloses that the thrust platen is actuated hydraulically by a piston that reciprocates within the hydraulic cylinder, affecting its reciprocation between open and closed positions (Gravely, pg. 10 column 4 lines 31-38) . Therefore, regarding the limitation “…to control the back-and-forth movement of the piston”, this is inherently met by Gravely. The hydraulic cylinder in modified Gravely causes the platen to move between “open and closed positions.” By definition, moving between two distinct positions (open and closed) requires the hydraulic piston to reciprocate (move back-and-forth). Therefore, managing the supply and discharge of hydraulic fluid to achieve the 'open/closed' state inherently controls the claimed “back-and-forth movement.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the all-solid-state battery pressure control system of Nanbu (as previously modified by Gravely above, and hereby further referenced as “modified Nanbu”) to further include the fluid control device and driving mechanism, as taught by Gravely. Such a modification would be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, as the hydraulic control of a piston is a known technique to control reciprocation (i.e. the back-and-forth movement) of the piston, and its inclusion in modified Nanbu would provide the expected, predictable function of controlling the fluid supply and discharge to and from the cylinder mechanism to control the back-and-forth movement of the piston. Regarding claim 5, and consistent with the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above, modified Nanbu teaches all features of claim 4 as described above, including a fluid discharge line connected to discharge the fluid from a main cylinder body (Nanbu, fluid channel 6B and housing 2; Fig. 1) . Nanbu states the housing can be made of a rigid body such as stainless steel, defining a “space V2.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this stainless-steel rigid body that defines a space is structurally identical to a “main cylinder body,” as claimed. Although the prior art uses the term “housing,” Nanbu teaches that this housing serves as the outer container for the pressure management system, thus inherently teaching a “main cylinder body.” Accordingly, Nanbu further teaches a first delivery device installed in the fluid supply line and configured to supply the fluid to the cylinder body (Nanbu, pressurizer 3 installed in fluid channel 6A supplies the fluid F to the housing/cylinder body, [0021]; Fig. 2) , where the first delivery device configured to be driven by the controller (Nanbu, [0023]) . However, modified Nanbu does not expressly teach: the fluid control device comprises: a fluid supply line connected to supply fluid to a main cylinder body having the piston installed therein in the cylinder mechanism ; a first valve installed in the fluid supply line and configured to perform opening and closing operations under control of the controller; and a second valve installed in the fluid discharge line and configured to perform opening and closing operations under control of the controller. Gravely teaches a controller device for use with a hydraulic press having a fluid pressure system ( Gravely, claim 1) wherein: the fluid control device comprises: a fluid supply line connected to supply fluid to a main cylinder body having the piston installed therein in the cylinder mechanism ( Gravely, a three-way control valve 32 directs the flow of fluid to the hydraulic cylinder 22 via the conduit 34 and line 44; the fluid flows to the hydraulic cylinder 22 behind the piston 20 via the conduit 44; pg. 10 column 4 lines 41-65) ; a first valve installed in the fluid supply line (Gravely, three-way control valve 32 directs the flow of fluid to the hydraulic cylinder 22 via conduit 34 and line 44) and configured to perform opening and closing operations under control of the controller ; and a second valve installed in the fluid discharge line ( Gravely, fluid passes through electromagnetically operated pressure release valve 38 via conduit 44 and line 44) and configured to perform opening and closing operations under control of the controller . Regarding the limitation “... configured to perform opening and closing operations under control of the controller ,” Gravely further discloses that the control panel starts the hydraulic pump(s) and closes “pressure release valve 38” at the start of a cycle, and when the timer reaches the end of its cycle, the pressure release valve is opened (Gravely, pg. 10 column 4 lines 66-68 through pg. 11 column 5 lines 1-6) . Therefore, “pressure release valve 38” is explicitly configured to perform opening and closing operations under control of the timer/controller (control panel 12). Though Gravely did not explicitly state the controller controls “pressure release valve 38”, the claimed functionality is inherently present, as Gravely describes “pressure release valve 38” as electromagnetically operated (Gravely, pg. 10 column 4 lines 50-54) and thus its operation is synchronized with the pump timer. Therefore, when operating the pressure control system as described, the pressure release valve necessarily opens and closes under control of the controller as claimed, since the timing of the pressure release is a natural result of the disclosed cycle operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the all-solid-state battery pressure control system of Nanbu (as previously modified by Gravely above, and hereby further referenced as “modified Nanbu”) by incorporating a fluid control device comprising first and second valves with a piston installed in the cylinder mechanism, and a method of controlling the first and second valves to perform opening and closing operations, as taught by Gravely. Such modification would involve the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve the known result of improved fluid control (Gravely, pg. 9 column 2 lines 1-6) . Specifically, applying the electronic valve control system of Gravely to the pressure control system of modified Nanbu would enhance operating efficiency and precision, constituting a simple substitution of elements to achieve a known advantage. Regarding claim 6, and consistent with the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above, modified Nanbu teaches all features of claim 5 as described above, and further discloses the fluid control device further comprises a second delivery device provided in the fluid discharge line and configured to suck in and discharge the fluid from the main cylinder body under control of the controller. The battery pressure control system of modified Nanbu inherently reads on this limitation. In particular, modified Nanbu teaches an all-solid-state battery pressure control system using fluid and plates, wherein a "space V2 of the housing" contains the battery. Modified Nanbu further discloses fluid channels 6A and 6B connected to a tank, and specifically states that “a fan or pump 6C” configured to cause the fluid to circulate may be further disposed in a portion of the fluid channel 6B between the housing and the chiller (Nanbu, [0021]; Fig. 1). The disclosed "fan or pump 6C" positioned in the fluid channel 6B constitutes a second delivery device in addition to the primary delivery device, the "pressurizer 3", which may be a pressure pump (Nanbu, [0018]) . The function of the "fan or pump 6C" in a closed system (i.e. the housing 2, tank 4, and channels 6A, 6B) is to circulate fluid, which inherently means it is configured to suck in and discharge fluid to/from the housing (i.e. the main cylinder body) under the control of the system (i.e. the processor) that operates the pressurizer. Therefore, the battery pressure control system of modified Nanbu inherently reads on this limitation. Regarding claim 7, modified Nanbu teaches all features of claim 5 as described above, and further discloses the fluid control device further comprises a pressure gauge installed in the fluid supply line or the main cylinder body to detect the pressure of the fluid in the main cylinder body (Nanbu, pressure guage PG is attached to a portion of fluid channel 6A; [0022]). However, modified Nanbu does not expressly disclose that the controller is configured to control the fluid control device such that the fluid pressure in the cylinder body increases or decreases according to a predetermined pressure change rate based on pressure state information detected by the pressure gauge. Gravely discloses a controller device for use with a hydraulic press having a fluid pressure system comprising a means for applying input signals representing predetermined values (Gravely, claim 3) . In particular, Gravely discloses the fluid pressure system includes a digital input unit for receiving signals, a microprocessor, and a solid-state input-output interface unit, along with a transducer to sense pressure and control the press (Gravely, claim 6) . Gravely further discloses utilizing a piston and cylinder to maintain pressure based on sensor input (Gravely, controller unit/control panel 12 controls the driving device, which includes the piston 20 within hydraulic cylinder 22 and hydraulic pump(s) and motor; pg. 10, column 4, lines 31-41; hydraulic pump and motor, pg. 9, column 2, lines 4-5; overall press system in Fig. 2) , such that the control panel controls the operation of the press structure in response (Gravely, pg. 10 column 4 lines 66-68 through pg. 11 column 5 lines 1-6) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the controller of the all-solid-state battery pressure control system of Nanbu (as previously modified by Gravely above, and hereby further referenced as “modified Nanbu”) to include the predetermined pressure change rate as taught by Gravely. Such a modification would constitute the combination of known elements (pressure controllers/guages and fluid-based hydraulic press systems) according to known methods (sensor feedback loops) to yield the predictable result of a pressure control system for a battery that uses controlled, rate-based pressure adjustments, and is suitable for a battery . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanbu as applied to claim 1 above . Regarding claims 8 and 9, Nanbu teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, and further teaches a pressurizing system for an all-solid-state battery comprising a controller (Nanbu, processor 7; Fig. 1) and a pressurizing device (Nanbu, pressurizer 3; Fig. 1) . Nanbu further discloses that the processor may, for example, control the pressurizer to increase the pressure for the battery device in a continuous or stepwise manner as the state of charge (SOC) of the all-solid-state battery decreases in order to provide a sufficient movement path for charged elements such as lithium ions, making it possible to suppress an increase in the internal resistance value (Nanbu, [0037]) . Claims 8 and 9 recite the controller is: configured to control the operation of the driving device to increase (claim 8) and/or reduce (claim 9) the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery when charging , and configured to control the operation of the driving device to increase (claim 9) and/or reduce (claim 8) the pressure applied to the all- solid-state battery when discharging . In reference to claim 9 , Nanbu discloses the controller controls the driving device to increase the pressure during discharge (i.e. decreasing SOC) (Nanbu, [0037]) . Conversely, in reference to claim 8 , Nanbu does not explicitly disclose increasing the pressure when charging (i.e. increasing SOC) as claimed. However, it is noted that the claim language only requires the controller to be configured to increase or reduce pressure during charging and discharging. It is well known in the art that all-solid-state batteries expand during charging and contract during discharging, and Nanbu explicitly teaches that the stacked structure of the battery device contracts with a decrease in the SOC thereof (Nanbu, [0037]) . Thus, Nanbu teaches a system designed to adjust pressure based on the contraction/expansion cycle of the battery, and that the controller is configured to manage interfacial resistance by managing pressure as the battery contracts during discharge (i.e. when the SOC decreases) (Nanbu, [0037], [0041], and [0057]) . To maintain a stable set pressure range throughout the entire expansion/contraction cycle (i.e. during both charging and discharging), it would have been obvious to additionally apply the pressure control mechanism of Nanbu during the opposite phase as recited in claim 8 (i.e. increasing the pressure during charging expansion/when the SOC increases). Modifying the controller of Nanbu to manage pressure during charging expansion is a predictable, functional equivalent to managing pressure during discharging contraction, yielding the same result of optimized interfacial resistance of the stacked battery structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also implement the pressure control method of Nanbu during the charging phase to address interfacial contact loss, or during either stage of cycling (i.e. charging and/or discharging), as it would be a matter of routine optimization . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanbu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (KR20210062263A) and Ose (US20150134172A1) . Regarding claim 10, Nanbu teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a controller that obtains pressure state information and adjusts the pressure of the battery accordingly (Nanbu, the processor 7 obtains state of charge (SOC) information and adjusts the pressure applied to the all solid state battery accordingly via the pressurizer 3; [0035] and [0037]). However, Nanbu does not expressly teach a pressurizing system for an all-solid-state battery wherein: the state information of the all-solid-state battery comprises a charge capacity of a previous charging process and a discharge capacity of a previous discharging process nor does Nanbu expressly teach: a controller configured to determine a pressure change rate in a current charging process based on the charge capacity of the previous charging process and determine a pressure change rate in a current discharging process based on the discharge capacity of the previous charging process. Lim discloses a method for estimating the state of deterioration (SOH) and state of charge (SOC) of an all-solid-state battery based on pressure change rate data (dP/dQ) (Lim, abstract; claim 1) . Specifically, Lim teaches that in order to estimate the state of the all-solid battery, the reference data for comparison determination for battery state estimation is first acquired through a prior test, and then the amount of pressure change (ΔP) is measured and monitored using a “pressure measuring means”, and the actual state of the battery is estimated using the reference data based on the pressure change rate data (dP/dQ) or (dP/dt) acquired through the measurement and monitoring processes (Lim, specification, pg. 10 lines 35-40) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of the all-solid-state battery pressure control system of Nanbu (hereby referenced as “modified Nanbu”) to be configured to incorporate the pressure-based state estimation method as taught by Lim. In reference to limitations (1) and (2) of the claim listed above, Lim explicitly teaches that the state estimation is based on pressure change rate data as a function of capacity (dP/dQ), which implies that a controller would inherently receive or calculate pressure state information that includes capacity data (Q) from previous charging/discharging cycles in order to determine a pressure change rate relative to that capacity. By utilizing the (dP/dQ) mapping taught by Lim to calculate the pressure change rate in the system of Nanbu, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to more accurately estimate the state of the battery over its lifetime (Lim, specification, pg. 2 lines 17-30) . Such a modification would involve combining a known battery pressure management system (Nanbu) with a known, accurate, state-estimation technique (Lim) to achieve the predictable results of improved, data-driven pressure management. Regarding claim 11, modified Nanbu teaches all features of claim 10 as described above, but does not expressly teach: a control range for the pressure to be applied to the all-solid-state battery is preset in the controller, and the controller is configured to determine the pressure change rate of the current charging process by dividing a difference between an upper limit pressure and a lower limit pressure in the control range by the charging capacity of the previous charging process, and determine the pressure change rate of the current discharging process by dividing the difference between the upper limit pressure and the lower limit pressure of the control range by the discharge capacity of the previous discharging process. Ose teaches that the pressurizing unit can apply a predetermined restraining pressure to the all-solid battery in a direction perpendicular to the lamination plane in accordance with an instruction from the pressure control unit. Ose further explicitly discloses a preset pressure control range applied to the all-solid-state battery. Specifically, Ose discloses a lower limit of the restraining pressure applied to the all-solid battery by the pressurizing unit during discharging is preferably 0.01 MPa or greater, more preferably 0.1 MPa or greater, and further preferably 1 MPa or greater; the upper limit of the applied restraining pressure is preferably no greater than 100 MPa, more preferably no greater than 50 MPa, and even more preferably no greater than 10 MPa (Ose, [0054]) . Ose further discloses that during charging , the upper limit for the confining pressure is preferably no greater than 200 MPa, more preferably no greater than 100 MPa and even more preferably no greater than 50 MPa (Ose, [0056]) . Accordingly, Ose teaches upper and lower pressure limits defining pressure control ranges for battery charging and discharging operations; this teaches limitation (1), as listed above, of claim 11. However, Ose does not expressly disclose limitations (2) and (3). Lim discloses a method for estimating the state of deterioration (SOH) and state of charge (SOC) of an all-solid-state battery based on pressure change rate data (dP/dQ) (Lim, abstract; claim 1) , where dP corresponds to a pressure change amount and Q corresponds to capacity (Lim, specification, pg. 8 lines 13-16) . Specifically, Lim teaches that the pressure change amount (ΔP) is measured and monitored, and that pressure change amount per unit capacity (dP/dQ), is used for battery state estimation (Lim, specification, pg. 10 lines 35-40) . Lim further teaches reference data corresponding to pressure change amount per unit capacity according to cell capacity, including reference capacity values associated with the pressure change amount data (Lim, specification, pg. 8 lines 13-16) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the controller of Nanbu in view of the (1) pressure control ranges taught by Ose and the pressure change per capacity analysis taught by Lim such that the controller (2) determines a pressure change rate of a current charging process by dividing the difference between the upper limit pressure and the lower limit pressure in the control range by the charging capacity of a previous charging process, and (3) determines a pressure change rate of a current discharging process by dividing the difference between the upper limit pressure and the lower limit pressure in the control range by the discharge capacity of a previous discharging process. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the difference between the upper and lower pressure limits of the control range taught by Ose constitutes a pressure change amount (ΔP) suitable for use in the pressure change amount per unit capacity analysis taught by Lim . Further, Lim teaches use of reference data and reference capacity values based on previously acquired battery operating information, which would have suggested using charging capacity and discharge capacity values from previous charging and discharging processes in determining pressure change rates for subsequent charging and discharging operations. Such a combination would involve applying a known pressure change per capacity analysis technique to known battery pressure control ranges in order to improve battery monitoring and operational control with predictable results. In addition, the modification would constitute the use of known techniques to improve similar battery control systems in the same manner as taught by the prior art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanbu as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Montambault (US20250007031A1; EFD 11/10/2021) Regarding claim 13, Nanbu teaches all features of claim 12 as described above, including a pressurizing system for an all-solid-state battery comprising a processor that obtains state of charge (SOC) information and adjusts the pressure applied to the all-solid-state battery accordingly via the pressurizer (Nanbu, [0035] and [0037]) . However, Nanbu does not expressly disclose a pressurizing system for an all-solid-state battery wherein the controller is configured to control the driving device so that the pressure for pressurizing the all-solid-state battery linearly changes at the pressure change rate as the SOC value changes during charging or discharging of the all-solid-state battery . Montambault discloses a fluidic system and a method for managing operating temperature and pressure of a battery using a controller connected to a battery management system (BMS), which manages fluid pressure and temperature setpoints to be applied to the battery as a function of a demand in power and in energy received by the BMS and pressure and temperature measurements taken by sensors in the system (Montambault, abstract) . Montambault further discloses the pressure for pressurizing the all-solid-state battery linearly changes at the pressure change rate as the SOC value changes during charging or discharging of the all-solid-state battery ( Montambault, Fig. 5B, “Respiration – controlled” data shows linear change in graph of Operating pressure vs. state of charge (SOC)) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Nanbu to include a pressure control protocol that linearly changes with the SOC, as taught by Montambault. Such modification would constitute the application of a known technique (linear pressure control based on SOC) to a known battery pressurizing system to yield predictable results. Specifically, the linear adjustment taught by Montambault would have provided a predictable way to optimize the performance of the battery pressure management system of Nanbu, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure precise, active and dynamic management of the operating pressure (Montambault; [0002]) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS R OSTWALT whose telephone number is (571)272-8650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 5712707692. 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. /A.R.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 2 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 3 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 4 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 5 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 6 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 7 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 8 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 9 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 10 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 11 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 12 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 13 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 14 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 15 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 16 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 17 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 18 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 19 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 20 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 21 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 22 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 23 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 24 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 25 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 26 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 27 Art Unit: 1789 Application/Control Number: 18/509,895 Page 28 Art Unit: 1789
Prosecution Insights