DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/577,652, which is a national stage entry of PCT/KR2023/002340, filed 2/17/2023, which claims priority to Korean application PCT/KR2023/002340, filed 2/21/2022.
Claims 1-10 are pending; Claims 1-9 are considered herein.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no search burden in examining the invention of Group II. This is not found persuasive because Group II includes a positively recited charger/discharger, while this feature is recited merely as an intended use limitation of Group I. Therefore, the two groups recite different claim scopes.
Further, the Applicant has not pointed out any specific deficiencies in the restriction requirement of 6/4/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0006699 A1: This reference teaches a pressurization device for a battery, in which fluid is filled into a pressure distributor 114 (paragraph [0007]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2014-56778A, provided in the IDS, with reference made to the provided machine translation.
In reference to Claim 1, JP2014-56778A teaches a battery cell pressurization device (Fig. 4, described in paragraphs [0084]-[0089] of the provided machine translation).
The device of JP2014-56778A comprises a case 5 configured to receive a battery cell 1 (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0084]-[0086] of the provided machine translation).
The device of JP2014-56778A comprises a fluid 5h inside of the case 5 pressurizing the battery cell 1 (paragraph [0078] of the provided machine translation).
JP2014-56778A teaches that the case 5 comprises an opening configured to pass an electrically conductive member 4a or 4b through the opening to connect the battery cell to a charger/discharger 10 (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0075]-[0077] of the provided machine translation).
JP2014-56778A teaches that the electrically conductive member 4a/4b is configured to apply a current to the battery cell (paragraphs [0075]-[0077] of the provided machine translation).
It is noted that “configured to pass an electrically conductive member through the opening to connect the battery cell to a charger/discharger, and wherein the electrically conductive member is configured to apply a current to the battery cell” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
In reference to Claim 3, Fig. 4 teaches that the case 5 further comprises an injection part 5a/5b and wherein the injection part comprises a path through which the fluid is injected into the case (paragraph [0086] of the provided machine translation).
It is noted that “through which the fluid is injected into the case” is considered an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 4, JP2014-56778A teaches that the pressure applied to the battery cell by the fluid is 3 MPa or more and 10 MPa or less, i.e. 0.3 MPa-10 MPa (paragraph [0043] of the provided machine translation).
In reference to Claim 6, JP2014-56778A teaches that the fluid is oil (paragraph [0042] of the provided machine translation).
In reference to Claim 7, it is the Examiner’s position that, because JP2014-56778A teaches that the pressurization device of his invention applies a pressure of 0.3 MPa-10 MPa to the interior of the case (paragraph [0043] of the provided machine translation), this disclosure teaches that the case has pressure resistance against deformation at a pressure of 3 MPa or more and 10 MPa or less.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogata, et al. (U.S. Patent 10,403,925 B1).
In reference to Claim 1, Ogata teaches a battery cell pressurization device (Fig. 5, column 6, lines 17-55).
The device of Ogata comprises a case configured to receive a battery cell 410, corresponding to the sealed housing described in column 6, lines 24-41.
The device of Ogata comprises a fluid 130 the inside of the case pressurizing the battery cell (column 6, lines 42-55).
The case of Ogata comprises an opening configured to pass an electrically conductive member 520 through the opening (Fig. 5, column 6, lines 34-37).
It is noted that this electrically conductive member 520 is structurally capable of connecting the battery cell to a charger/discharger, and is structurally capable of applying a current to the battery cell, because it is an electrically conductive member that is connected to the battery cell and extends out from the sealed housing.
It is noted that “configured to pass an electrically conductive member through the opening to connect the battery cell to a charger/discharger, and wherein the electrically conductive member is configured to apply a current to the battery cell” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 2, Ogata teaches that the fluid applies isotropic pressure to the battery cells (column 5, line 60, through column 6, line 4).
It is noted that “during an activation process of charging/discharging the battery cell with the charger/discharger” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 5, Ogata teaches that the fluid comprises an insulating and viscous material (i.e. insulating oil, column 5, lines 60-65).
In reference to Claim 6, Ogata teaches that the fluid is oil (column 5, line 60, through column 6, line 4).
In reference to Claim 9, Ogata teaches that the battery cell is a pouch-type battery cell (column 5, line 60, through column 6, line 4).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirasawa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0208054 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Shirasawa teaches a battery cell pressurization device (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0029]-[0042]).
The device of Shirasawa comprises a case 30 configured to receive a battery cell 15 (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
The device of Shirasawa comprises a fluid the inside of the case pressurizing the battery cell, corresponding to pressurizing gas 40 (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the case 30 comprises an opening configured to pass an electrically conductive member 25 or 26 through the opening (paragraph [0029]).
It is noted that this electrically conductive member 25 or 26 is structurally capable of connecting the battery cell to a charger/discharger, and is structurally capable of applying a current to the battery cell, because it is an electrically conductive member that is connected to the battery cell and extends out from the sealed housing.
It is noted that “configured to pass an electrically conductive member through the opening to connect the battery cell to a charger/discharger, and wherein the electrically conductive member is configured to apply a current to the battery cell” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
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 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasawa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0208054 A1).
In reference to Claim 4, Shirasawa teaches that the pressure applied to the battery cell by the fluid is 0.1-40 kgf/cm2 (paragraph [0039]), which corresponds to a pressure of 0.0098-3.9 MPa.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the pressure applied to the battery cell by the fluid is 3PMa or more and 10 MPa or less.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 3PMa or more and 10 MPa or less overlaps with the taught range of 0.0098-3.9 MPa.
In reference to Claim 7, Shirasawa teaches that the pressure applied to the battery cell by the fluid is 0.1-40 kgf/cm2 (paragraph [0039]), which corresponds to a pressure of 0.0098-3.9 MPa.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the case has pressure resistance against deformation at a pressure of 3 MPa or more and 10 MPa or less.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 3PMa or more and 10 MPa or less overlaps with the taught range of 0.0098-3.9 MPa.
In reference to Claim 8, Shirasawa teaches that the battery cell comprises a positive electrode 2 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0033]), a negative electrode 3 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0034]), and a solid electrolyte 1 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0032]).
Shirasawa does not teach that at least two among a size of the positive electrode, a size of the negative electrode, and a size of the solid electrolyte are necessarily different from each other.
However, he teaches that the thickness of the negative electrode layer 3 is 5-500 microns (paragraph [0034]) and the thickness of the positive electrode 2 is 5-500 microns (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the positive electrode to have any thickness between 5-500 microns, and the negative electrode to have any thickness between 5-500 microns, including configurations in which the thicknesses of the positive and negative electrodes are the same as each other, or different from each other.
Forming the positive and negative electrodes to have thicknesses different from each other teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein at least two among a size (thickness) of the positive electrode, a size (thickness) of the negative electrode, and a size (thickness) of the solid electrolyte are different from each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights