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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 23, 2024 was considered by the examiner.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/019048 (Taniuchi et al.) in view of KR20170013005 (KR’005).
Regarding claim 1, Tanuichi et al. (herein in Tanuichi) discloses a solid-state battery module where a separator is disposed between adjacent battery cells of the plurality of cells (¶0022). The separator serves to increase durability and vibration resistance (Abstract). A pressing part is disclosed that applies force to the laminate creating the gap where the separator is inserted (¶0028). The gap formed by the separator is between elastic members where the gap can be filled with a fluid (¶0033). In addition to the water a buffer material or battery case fixing member can be disposed in the gap. End plates can be disposed to constitute the solid-state battery module (¶0040).
While Tanuichi discloses elastic members that are elastic in the exterior with a fluid filled space it is silent in regards to a second elastic member disposed in between the first pair of elastic members.
KR’005 discloses a battery module containing a plurality of battery cells having an elastic member of metal material (¶0010). A pair of end plates is disclosed in the embodiment facing the battery cells at the outermost portion of the module assembly (¶0038). The elastic member is formed as an assembly of metal material and can be disposed between two battery cells and can further be provided between each of the end plates and the battery cell (¶0043). The elastic member has contact plates with an elastic plate where the contact plates can be disposed to face the battery cell or the end plate (¶0046). The metal elastic member structure can better control cell swelling and more reliably apply an initial surface pressure to the cell (¶0053).
It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporate the inclusion of the metal elastic member of KR’005 with the battery module of Tanuichi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known ways to achieve predictable results. Tanuichi discusses including fixing members within the gap filled with fluid. The increased durability and vibration resistance with the fluid filled elastic member between the plurality of cells along with the metal elastic member to more reliably apply an initial pressure would create a cushion material to improve a solid state battery module.
Regarding claim 2, Tanuichi discloses that the elastic members are made of an elastically deformable material such as a resin (¶0031). The fluid that is disposed in the gap can be water (¶0033).
Regarding claim 6, KR’005 discloses that the elastic member between the two contact plates can function as a leaf spring (¶0048).
Regarding claim 7, Tanuichi discloses that the invention is a solid-state battery module with a separator to apply sufficient pressure to a solid-state battery cell (¶0007).
Regarding claim 3, KR’005 does not specifically disclose the use of stainless steel as the metal for the contact plates of the elastic member, corresponding to the limitation of rigid members, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose it. Stainless steel is a standard use metal for battery housing components for structural support and other non-reactive use cases. US20220336851 (Kim et al.) discloses an all-solid state battery housing where the housing includes a rigid body made of stainless steel.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0294510 (Kitaura et al.) in view of US2019/172639 (Hideyuki et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Kitaura et al. (herein Kitaura) discloses a laminated battery module containing one or more unit cells with a restraining member containing a pair of end plates on both ends of the battery laminate in the direction of the laminate (¶0031). An elastic member may be arranged at an intermediate location of the battery laminate, namely between two adjacent unit cells in the battery laminate or may be arranged between the end of the battery laminate and one of the end plates (¶0068). Moreover, the elastic member may be separately arranged at a plurality of these locations. The elastic member is not limited in the disclosure as it undergoes a decrease in the elastic modulus within a temperature range (¶0059). The elastic member can further be set according to the size of the laminate, degree of expansion and contraction, or the thickness of the member (¶0060). The elastic member serves to impart the minimum required restraining load to the laminate to not force an increase in the size of the restraining member (¶0034).
While Kitaura discloses a laminated battery module containing an elastic member between the laminate and end plates or within the plurality of cells it fails to disclose a pair of elastic members disposed on the outer side.
Hideyuki et al. (herein Hideyuki) discloses a power storage module with cooling members in which coolant is sealed in a sealing body (¶0007). An elastic member is disclosed to be adjacent to the upper surface of the sealing body (¶0043). The sealing body is in contact with power storage element and plate element (¶0040).
It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the battery module structure of Kitaura with the elastic member structure of Hideyuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of combining prior art elements according to known ways to achieve predictable results. The elastic member of Kitaura and location within the laminate allows for a smaller structure by not relying on the restraining members to impart pressure and the sealing body adjacent to the elastic member in Hideyuki allows for ease of cooling or heat conductivity depending on fluid.
Regarding claim 5, Hideyuki discloses that the coolant can be a liquid such as water (¶0036). The sealing body is formed by laminating a resin film to a metal sheet such as aluminum (¶0039).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E. HALES whose telephone number is (571) 270-5710. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (572) 272-0604. 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.
/D.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights