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 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 1-10 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 "the plurality of elastic members" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the first plate and the pressing plate are sandwiched to form a loading space” in Lines 10-11 however this language infers the plates themselves are sandwiched when instead the loading space is sandwiched by the first plate and the pressing plate. Appropriate correction is required for clarity.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the force generation unit converts the rotational force into linear force and transmits to the pressing plate.” In the specification the force transmission unit converts the rotational force into linear force (Original Specification, [0011]). This is unclear in view of the specification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pressure plate" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 and 7-10 are ultimately dependent from independent claim 1 which stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (KR 20230068702 A - Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter "Kwak" in view of Kim et al. (KR 101983849 B1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Kim". Kwak and Kim et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely pressure adjustment devices.
In regard to Claim 1, Kwak et al. discloses an automatic pressure adjustment device for measuring the pressurization demand of battery cells (Kwak, Abstract), comprising a linear force output module (Pressure Drive Unit) used to generate linear force (Kwak, [17]), a pressing module including a pressing plate (160) and a guide rail (guide part) wherein the guide rail is parallel to the linear force direction of the linear force output module and wherein the pressing plate is moved along the guide rail by the linear force of the linear force output module (Kwak, [14-15]).
Kwak et al. also discloses an elastic module including a first plate (150), a second plate (240), at least one elastic member (241) and at least one pressure sensing unit (Load cell), (Kwak, [21, 26]). Further Kwak et al. discloses an embodiment wherein the first plate and the pressing plate create a sandwich to form a loading space for the cell (Kwak, [16]) and the plurality of elastic members are disposed between the first plate and the second plate (Kwak, [26]) and the compression direction of the plurality of elastic members is along the linear force direction (Figure 1, (241)).
While Kwak et al. discloses at least two pressure sensing units (Kwak, [19, 22]) which are installed to receive accurate pressure readings, Kwak is silent as to the pressure sensing units disposed on one side of the second plate, however this would be readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Kim et al. which discloses a pressure adjustment device for measuring the pressurization demand of battery cells which comprises pressing plates, guide shafts, pressure sensing units and an elastic module including a first plate, a second plate, at least one elastic member wherein the at least one pressure sensing unit is disposed on one side of the second plate (Kim, Abstract, Figures 1, 4) which is taught as an advantageous configuration when it is necessary to measure the load, the surface pressure distribution, and the displacement caused by the swelling of the battery in the state of pressurizing to the set value measured by the load cell and pressing the same standard for each battery cell, so that the reliability of the test measurement value can be recognized (Kim, [38]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a pressure sensing unit in the configuration taught in Kim as the pressure sensing unit configuration in Kwak as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kim and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claims 2-3, Kwak in view of Kim discloses the automatic pressure adjustment device for measuring the pressurization demand of battery cells according to claim 1. Kwak et al also discloses a control module signally connected to the linear force output module, wherein the control module controls the linear force output of the linear force output module and wherein the control module is signally connected to the at least one pressure sensing unit, and the at least one pressure sensing unit transmits a pressure value signal to the control module (Kwak, [25]).
In regard to Claims 5-6, Kwak in view of Kim discloses the automatic pressure adjustment device for measuring the pressurization demand of battery cells according to claim 1. Kwak et al. also discloses wherein the linear force output module includes a force generation unit and a force transmission unit, the force generation unit generates rotational force, and the force transmission unit converts the rotational force into linear force and transmits to the pressing plate and wherein the force generation unit is a motor, the force transmission unit including a gear set and a screw shaft, the gear set is sleeved on a force output shaft of the motor, and the screw shaft is connected to the gear set and the pressure plate, which is a well-known mechanical configuration to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (Kwak, [18,24]).
In regard to Claim 9, Kwak in view of Kim discloses the automatic pressure adjustment device for measuring the pressurization demand of battery cells according to claim 1. Kwak et al. also discloses a base (support plates), wherein the at least one pressure sensing unit is disposed between the second plate and the base (Kwak, [21]).
In regard to Claim 10, Kwak in view of Kim discloses the automatic pressure adjustment device for measuring the pressurization demand of battery cells according to claim 1. While Kwak et al. discloses guide rails (guide members) it is silent as to the pressing module further including at least one guide post, and the at least one guide post penetrates the pressing plate.
However, the skilled artisan of Kwak would be well aware of the use of guide posts as well as disclosed in Kim et al. which discloses a guide post (shaft) and the at least one guide post penetrates the pressing plate (Kim, Claim 1, Figure 1) which has the advantage of spacing the plates at predetermined intervals and supporting the frame (Kim, Claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a guide shaft which passes through the plates to help support the frame as taught in Kim et al. to the device of Kwak et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (KR 20230068702 A - Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter "Kwak" in view of Kim et al. (KR 101983849 B1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ha et al. (US 20230078958 A1), hereinafter "Ha". Kwak, Kim and Ha et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely pressure adjustment devices.
In regard to Claim 4, Kwak in view of Kim discloses the automatic pressure adjustment device for measuring the pressurization demand of battery cells according to claim 3. Kwak et al. also discloses a control module which corrects pressure during a voltage applied test and uses load cell data to measure pressure changes and a pressure correction driver to return the cells to a set pressure after changes caused by internal gas generation (Kwak, [11, 25]) but is silent as using the electrical data transmitted by the electrical measurement module to determine optimal pressure.
However, obtaining this data could reasonably be done by the skilled artisan of Kwak as taught in Ha et al. which discloses finding an optimal pressure range for secondary battery cells based on performance data obtained while the cell is pressed with increasing pressure (Ha, Abstract, [0011]). Ha et al. also discloses identifying performance data such as capacity degradation rate, resistance increase rate and separator thickness retention rate while simultaneously pressing and charging/discharging the cell (Ha, [0012]) with an advantage of this taught as a method of setting a cell pressure range, which enables pressurization of secondary battery cells within an optimal pressure range based on quantitative data (Ha, 0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide known electrical data gathering equipment to the device of Kwak et al. to determine the optimal pressure range based on quantitative data as taught in Ha et al. as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (KR 20230068702 A - Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter "Kwak" in view of Kim et al. (KR 101983849 B1 - Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shu et al. (CN 2369984 Y - Machine Translation referenced for citation), hereinafter "Shu". Kwak, Kim and Shu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely pressure adjustment devices.
In regard to Claims 7-8, Kwak in view of Kim discloses the automatic pressure adjustment device for measuring the pressurization demand of battery cells according to claim 1. Kwak et al. also discloses a reducer is disposed at the force output shaft of the motor (Kwak, [18]) but is silent as to a spur gear connected to the reducer wherein the reducer is a harmonic gear.
The skilled artisan of Kwak in providing a mechanical motor drive train to produce the pressure effect of the device would be aware of many configurations to achieve this result and as evidenced by Shu et al. which discloses the beneficial concept of a motor driving a harmonic driving speed reducer followed by additional deceleration through an external spur gear train, which then drives a two stage screwed driving mechanism to move up and down (Shu, Abstract, [9]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a specific beneficial drive train as taught in Shu et al. as the drive train of Kwak as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights