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 Interpretation
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.
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: a detection unit configured to detect a load applied to the intermediate plate and an estimation unit configured to estimate generation of hydrogen sulfide in the unit cell based on a change in the load applied to the intermediate plate in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (JP-2019033043-A, hereinafter “Noguchi”) in view of Eto (JP-2001236937-A).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Noguchi is directed to a battery module ([0001]) (i.e., battery system) comprising:
An all-solid-state battery 2 (i.e., unit cell) having positive electrode 14 and negative electrode 15 that contain sulfur elements ([0037]) (i.e., a unit cell that is a sulfide-based all-solid-state battery);
An all-solid-state battery module 11, wherein multiple solid-state batteries 2 are housed in a stacked configuration sandwiched between restraining portion 9A and 9B (Figure 4; [0048] and last paragraph of [0049]) (i.e., a battery module in which a plurality of the unit cells is stacked between a pair of restraining members);
A pressure detection unit for detecting the pressure inside the container ([0009]) (i.e., detection unit configured to detect a load). This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as any detection unit that detects a load; and
A determination unit (i.e., estimation unit) that is included in the all-solid-state battery module to address the problem of the generation of hydrogen sulfide in solid-state batteries that use sulfide materials by determining if a pressure change has occurred ([0005], [0008], and [0014]) (i.e., estimation unit configured to estimate generation of hydrogen sulfide in the unit cell based on a change in the load). This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as any estimation unit that estimates the generation of hydrogen sulfide in the unit cell based on a change in the load.
Noguchi does not disclose (i) an intermediate plate disposed between the stacked unit cells; or (ii) a detection unit configured to detect a load applied to the intermediate plate and an estimation unit configured to measure a change in the load applied to the intermediate plate.
Regarding (i) and (ii), Eto is directed to a battery pack comprising a plurality of prismatic battery cells stacked in the thickness direction and a technique for suppressing the expansion of any of the prismatic battery cells ([0001]). Eto discloses multiple intermediate restraint plates 17 that separate the stacked rectangular battery cells 11 (Figure 9; first paragraph of [0053]) (i.e., an intermediate plate disposed between the stacked unit cells).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery system of Noguchi by adding (i) an intermediate plate disposed between the stacked unit cells as taught by Eto because an intermediate plate can isolate the internal pressure increase of a battery cell to affect only the other battery cells in the region between the plates where the original pressurized battery cell is located in, thereby reliably preventing a decrease in battery performance and damage to the battery case (Eto, [0058]). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that (ii) a detection unit would be configured to detect a load applied to the intermediate plate and an estimation unit would be configured to measure a change in the load applied to the intermediate plate, because (1) Noguchi teaches that a pressure detection unit can detect a pressure or load and a determination unit (i.e., estimation unit) can measure a change in that load (Noguchi, [0009] and [0014]), but does not disclose that the load is applied to an intermediate plate; and (2) any increase in pressure that would occur in the battery module, would consequently exert a physical load on any wall or surface, including an intermediate plate, and that load would be detected by the pressure detection unit and the change in the load would be measured by the determination unit (i.e., estimation unit), enabling the internal pressure of the battery container to be constantly monitored and measures to be taken if an abnormal pressure fluctuation occurs to ensure the safety of the solid-state battery (Noguchi, fourth and fifth paragraph of [0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Noguchi discloses an all-solid state battery 2 (i.e., unit cell) comprising a sealed housing 13, wherein the laminate material, formed by laminating a thin metal film 13A and a thermoplastic resin film 13B, make up sealed enclosure 13 (i.e., exterior member) (line 7 of [0021] and first three lines of [0024]) (i.e., the unit cell is a laminated all-solid-state battery including a laminate film as an exterior member).
Regarding claim 7, Noguchi discloses that the all-solid-state battery 2 (i.e., unit cell) includes an all-solid-state electrolyte 16 containing at least of sulfur elements (i.e., sulfide-based solid electrolyte) ([0037]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of Eto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirano (JP-2010165585-A) and Chen et al. (CN-113471555-A, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 2, Noguchi in view of Eto discloses a base member, wherein the restraining member 9A and 9B are fixed to the base member (Noguchi, Figure 4, [0049]). See the following annotated Figure 4 from Noguchi.
PNG
media_image1.png
845
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Noguchi in view of Eto does not disclose that (i) the intermediate plate is fixed to a base member in a cantilevered state; or (ii) the detection unit is a strain gauge provided on the intermediate plate.
Regarding (ii) Hirano is directed to an energy storage device, conventionally a battery pack, capable of detecting when gas is discharged from an energy storage element ([0001]-[0002]). Hirano discloses deformation and strain that can be detected by strain gauges 40a to 40d (i.e., detection unit is a strain gauge) and can be installed on the surfaces of deformation plate 12 (i.e., intermediate plate) that constitute the inner wall surface of the pack case 10 ([0057]) (i.e., the detection unit is a strain gauge provided on the intermediate plate).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery system of Noguchi in view of Eto by adding (ii) a detection unit that is a strain gauge on the intermediate plate as taught by Hirano because strain gauges can detect gas leaks better than the conventional method of using pressure sensors. The inside of battery cases is normally filled with air that can absorb and minimize the internal pressure change when gases from inside the battery actually leak, which would necessitate the use of more accurate but expensive pressure sensors compared to strain gauges (Hirano, [0002]-[0009]).
Regarding (i), Chen is directed to power battery technology and smart battery cells that are capable of accurately detecting its internal environmental conditions including pressure ([n0001]-[n0004]). Chen discloses a strain gauge 129 that is mounted on the inside of cover plate 102 and is cantilevered (second paragraph of [n0122]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery system of Noguchi in view of Eto and Hirano by (i) fixing the intermediate plate to the base member in a cantilevered state as taught by Chen because a cantilevered intermediate plate would enable the strain gauge to easily deform when subjected to the internal pressure of the battery system, improving the sensitivity of the strain gauge (Chen, second paragraph of [n0122]).
Regarding claim 3, Noguchi in view of Eto does not disclose an estimation unit configured to determine a direction of a bending strain detected by the strain gauge, and based on a relationship between the direction of the bending strain and a position of the intermediate plate in a stacking direction of the unit cells, identify an arrangement position of the unit cell where hydrogen sulfide is generated.
Hirano discloses a control system (i.e., estimation unit) that determines the state of an energy storage element based on an output signal of a strain gauge corresponding to the direction of deformation (i.e., direction of a bending strain detected by the strain gauge) of the deformable part (i.e., intermediate plate) ([0009] and [0012]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery system of Noguchi in view of Eto by applying the known technique of configuring the estimation unit to use the output signal of a strain gauge to determine the direction of a bending strain and where the hydrogen sulfide is generated in relation to the position of the intermediate plate as taught by Hirano because (1) the strain gauge outputs a signal corresponding to the direction of deformation and that output signal can be used by the control system to determine a more complete state of the battery system (Hirano, [0012]); and (2) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize where the hydrogen sulfide is generated from in relation to the intermediate plate by using the direction of deformation outputted by the strain gauge, e.g., if the output of the strain gauge signals that the strain is in the leftward direction then the hydrogen sulfide is generated from the unit cells on the right side of the intermediate plate.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of Eto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phlegm et al. (US-20230299365-A1, hereinafter “Phlegm”) and P3 America (LVDT Sensors for Linear Displacement Measurement, 2019).
Regarding claim 4, Noguchi in view of Eto does not disclose that the intermediate plate is configured to be displaced in a stacking direction of the unit cells and the detection unit is a sensor that detects displacement of the intermediate plate.
Phlegm is directed to an apparatus and method for applying and maintaining constant pressure on one or more battery cells ([0001]) and discloses that:
A top plate (i.e., intermediate plate) is configured for constrained vertical movement towards and away from a bottom plate, wherein a battery cell placement volume 90 is in between the top and bottom plate and comprises stacked battery cell 10 (i.e., unit cells) (Figure 2, [0018]) (i.e., the intermediate plate is configured to be displaced in a stacking direction of the unit cells); and
A linear displacement sensor 66 (i.e., the detection unit is a sensor), such as a linear variable differential transformer, is connected to the top plate 30 for measuring a vertical displacement of the top plate 30 (Figure 2, last ten lines of [0020]) (i.e., the detection unit is a sensor that detects displacement of the intermediate plate).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery system of Noguchi in view of Eto by configuring the intermediate plate to be displaced in a stacking direction of the unit cells and the detection unit to be a sensor that detects displacement of the intermediate plate as taught by Phlegm because the vertical displacement of the plate, as detected by the linear displacement sensor, can indicate an expansion of one or more of the unit cells (Phlegm, last ten lines of [0020]).
Regarding claim 5, Noguchi in view of Eto and Phlegm does not disclose that the estimation unit is configured to determine a direction of the displacement of the intermediate plate detected by the sensor, and based on a relationship between the direction of the displacement of the intermediate plate and a position of the intermediate plate in the stacking direction of the unit cells, identify an arrangement position of the unit cell where hydrogen sulfide is generated.
P3 America is directed to linear variable differential transformers that are used to measure displacement (pg. 1, first paragraph), which is reasonably pertinent to the problem of detecting battery cell expansion due to gases. P3 America discloses that linear displacement sensors can show the direction of motion (pg. 1, first bulleted list).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery system of Noguchi in view of Eto and Phlegm by configuring the estimation unit to determine a direction of the displacement of the intermediate plate detected by the sensor and based on a relationship between the direction of the displacement of the intermediate plate and a position of the intermediate plate in the stacking direction of the unit cells, identify an arrangement position of the unit cell where hydrogen sulfide is generated as taught by P3 America, because one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that (1) linear displacement sensors can measure direction (P3 America, pg. 1, first bulleted list); and (2) it would have been obvious to realize where the hydrogen sulfide is generated from in relation to the intermediate plate by using the direction of displacement outputted by the linear displacement sensor, e.g., if the linear displacement sensor signals that the displacement is in the leftward direction then the hydrogen sulfide is generated from the unit cells on the right side of the intermediate plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-4pm; Fri 7am-11am.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/NATHAN NGOC-NGOC HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights