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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-5 are pending in the current application and under consideration on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 29, 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 2-4 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 2 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of second elastic members are arranged at predetermined intervals”. The predetermined interval is not apparent, and the specification does not rectify the ambiguousness of the term. The specification points to 14b of figure 2 as a predetermined distance. 14b could refer to the distance between peaks of the second elastic member, the length of the second elastic member, the distance between independent second elastic members, or the distance between the first elastic members that the second elastic member occupies. For purposes of examination the term “predetermined interval” is construed to refer to the distance between independent second elastic members.
Claims 3-4 are rejected for including the subject matter of claim 2 without rectifying the issues noted above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of equation 1: ΔL = 2N × (Rθ - 1/2). This equation determines the spacing between adjacent second elastic members (ΔL) as a function of the number of waves (N) multiplied by a length of the uncompressed wave defined by Rθ - 1/2. Applicant states in paragraph 29 of the specification that when the spacing between adjacent second elastic members is set using this equation, adjacent second elastic members will not touch when under compression due to the battery being fully charged.
ΔL and R have identical units of length. θ is an angle that could be expressed by radians or degrees. While the units of length can be any unit of length, the use of degrees or radians for the angle must be defined. If N and R are consistently defined throughout the second elastic members, and θ is an angle with equivalent measurements in degrees and radians, then ΔL has two embodiments simultaneously depending on which unit of measurement for the angle is used.
Furthermore, The distance between adjacent members cannot be negative so Rθ > 0.5. Certain embodiments that exist when using degrees could not exist when converted to radians and vice versa. For purposes of examination, the claimed limitation is said to be met when there is space between adjacent second elastic members, in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction, when the members are compressed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Bobel et al. (US 2023/0299404 A1), herein referred to as “Bobel”.
Regarding claim 1, Bobel discloses a battery cell pack with a plurality of battery cells arranged in a horizontal stack [0032]. The cells are arranged in a housing with opposing end plates [0032]. Deformable separators (cushioning member) are interposed between subsets of battery cells [0034]. The subsets of battery cells could be any quantity of battery cells [0035]. The deformable separators comprise a first sheet with an opposing second sheet [0036]. The first and second opposing sheet envelop a compressible spring [0036]. The first and second sheet act as first elastic members and the compressible spring acts as a second elastic member. There can be multiple compressible springs in the deformable separators [0040]. The first and second sheets are in contact with the outer surface of adjacent subsets of battery cells in the stacking direction [0036]. The compressible spring can be a wave spring, a coil spring, a leaf spring, a bead spring, a linear spring, or another form of compressible spring device having predetermined properties of elasticity and plasticity [0040]. Furthermore, figure 4A and 4B illustrate a single-wave wave spring and bi-wave wave spring respectively. These wave springs are identical to the corrugated leaf springs as illustrated by applicant. The compressible spring is arranged to provide a compressive force to the first and second sheet in the stacking direction [0036]. The single-wave wave spring and bi-wave wave spring have a plurality of lobes which create cavities extending along a direction [0053, Fig. 4A and 4B]. The cavities are defined by recesses and protrusions of the lobes. The lobes of adjacent bi-wave wave spring face each other in an alternating pattern to allow contact [Fig. 4A and 4B].
PNG
media_image1.png
540
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bobel et al. (US 2023/0299404 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Bobel discloses the battery module as described above in the rejection of claim 1. For the sake of brevity, the rejection of these claims is included here, but not repeated. Bobel does not disclose wherein the plurality of second elastic members are arranged at predetermined intervals. Bobel further teaches there could be multiple compressible spring used in the deformable separators between subsets of battery cells [0040]. Furthermore, the force the compressible spring exerts should be uniform on adjacent battery cells [0036]. Therefore, while not explicitly disclosed, Bobel teaches that the spacing between multiple compressible springs should be in such a way to provide a uniform compressive force, which would require some uniform series arrangement of the multiple compressible springs. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c) for discussion on rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 4, Bobel discloses the battery module as described above in the rejection of claim 2. For the sake of brevity, the rejection of these claims is included here, but not repeated. Bobel does not disclose wherein in a state in which the battery cells are uncharged, a neutral plane of the corrugated leaf spring in a 1⁄2 cycle is substantially identical to an arc formed with a radius R and a center angle θ, and the distance between the adjacent ones of the plurality of second elastic members is equal to ΔL expressed by the following equation [1]: ΔL = 2N × (Rθ - 1/2) [1] where N is the number of waves that the corrugated leaf spring has in the state in which the battery cells are uncharged, and l is a width of each one of the waves that the corrugated leaf spring has in the state in which the battery cells are uncharged.
Simply, equation 1 expresses the distance between adjacent second elastic members (ΔL) as a function of the number of waves (2N) by some length of the wave defined by Rθ - ½. The purpose of this equation is it spaces adjacent second elastic members far enough so when they are compressed by the battery being fully charged, they do not touch. As discussed in the 112(b) rejection for claim 4, the claimed limitation is said to be met when there is space between adjacent second elastic members, in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction, when the members are compressed.
Bobel further teaches the force the compressible spring exerts should be uniform on adjacent battery cells [0036]. Therefore, while not explicitly disclosed, Bobel teaches that the spacing between multiple compressible springs should be in such a way to provide a uniform compressive force, which would require some uniform series arrangement of the multiple compressible springs. This uniform series arrangement results in embodiments whereinhen the springs are compressed there is a uniform gap in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction spaced across the compressed structure. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c) for discussion on rearrangement of parts.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bobel et al. (US 2023/0299404 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Kogami et al (US 2022/0255182 A1), herein referred to as “Kogami”.
Regarding claim 3, Bobel discloses the battery module as described above in the rejection of claim 2. For the sake of brevity, the rejection of these claims is included here, but not repeated. Bobel does not teach wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of second elastic members are spaced apart from each other by a distance of 0.8 mm or greater and 2.0 mm or less.
In the same field of partitions for battery cells capable of absorbing thickness changes due to charging, Kogami discloses a stopper interposed between elastic layers [0064]. The elastic layers absorb expansion of the battery cells and press the case surface of the battery and therefore act as corrugated leaf springs [0055]. Figure 4 illustrates two curved elastic layers with a stopper interposed between. The stopper has height of 1.5 mm, which places the elastic layers 1.5 mm apart [0072]. Kogami discloses it is advantageous to have a stopper separating the elastic layers by 1.5 mm as it prevents the deterioration of the elastic layers due to an increase of internal pressure of the battery cell [0072]. Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the stopper with a height of 1.5 mm disclosed by Kogami between the compressible springs of Bobel for the purposes of preventing the deterioration of the compressible springs due to an increase of internal pressure of the battery cell.
PNG
media_image2.png
838
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bobel et al. (US 2023/0299404 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0320665), herein referred to as “Nakayama”.
Regarding claim 5, Bobel discloses the battery module as described above in the rejection of claim 2. For the sake of brevity, the rejection of these claims is included here, but not repeated.
Bobel does not disclose wherein the battery cells are solid battery cells.
In the same field of accommodating deformation of a power storage module during charging and discharging, Nakayama discloses a restriction unit comprising two flat plates (first elastic members) which interpose a corrugated plate (second elastic members) for use in a solid-state battery [0081, 0082]. The deformable separators of Bobel have an identical structure to the restriction units of Nakayama. Furthermore, the corrugated plate of Nakayama is identical to the single-wave wave spring of Bobel as evidenced by figure 5 of Nakayama. Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the deformable separators of Bobel could be used in a solid-state battery as Nakayama discloses an identical structure for use with a solid-state battery.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/616,206. The difference between the claim sets lies in the fact that the entire scope of the present claims falls within the scope of the copending claims. Thus, the present claims are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the copending claims.
Specifically, the claim sets are identical with the exception that the species of the present claims additionally require “a plurality of second elastic members” rather than “a second elastic member” as found in the copending application. It is noted that the term “comprising” in the copending claims is open ended and as a result the copending claims allow for additional elastic members.
However, it would have been obvious to select the claimed species or sub-genus given the genus of the copending claims. More specifically, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use two or more (a plurality) of second elastic members, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.)
Regarding claim 2, application No. 18/616,206 claims “wherein a part of the recesses and the protrusions facing and in contact with each other are bonded to each other” in claim 2. The instant application claims arrangement of the secondary elastic members, which have recesses and protrusions, at predetermined intervals in claim 2. As discussed above in the 112(b) rejection for claim 2, the term predetermined interval has multiple embodiments, one such embodiment is where recesses and protrusions of the secondary elastic members are in contact with each other as illustrated in figure 2. Therefore, claim 2 of application No. 18/616,206 is anticipatory of claim 2 of the instant application as claim 2 of application No. 18/616,206 recites an embodiment of claim 2 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 2, there is no evidence indicating the distance between the elastic members are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, application No. 18/616,206 claims “the battery module according to claim 1, wherein the battery cells are solid battery cells” in claim 4. This is identical to claim 5 of the instant application. As discussed above, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipatory of claim 1 of application No. 18/616,206. Therefore, claim 5 of the instant application anticipates claim 4 of application No. 18/616,206.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 19/064,738. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The difference between the claim sets lies in the fact that the entire scope of the reference claims falls within the scope of the present claims. Thus the reference claims are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the present claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the claim sets are identical with the exception that the reference claims additionally require a soft resin having a hardness of E40 or less or E60 or more and of specific materials in claims 1 and 2 which is encompassed by the use of the term “comprising” in the present claims. It has been held in this scenario that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species” and is a basis for establishing nonstatutory double patenting. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2) and 2131.02, In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they overlap in scope and the narrower set of claims anticipate the broader set of claims.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 2, there is no evidence indicating the distance between the elastic members are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, the solid battery cells correspond to the subject matter of claim 4 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Riedmann et al. (US 2019/0044115 A1) disclose battery module having a plurality of battery cells, in particular lithium ion battery cells, comprising a plurality of separating walls, wherein a battery cell is arranged between two separating walls and a first compensating element is arranged between a first battery cell and a separating wall adjacent to the first battery cell and a second compensating element is arranged between a second battery cell and a separating wall adjacent to the second battery cell, characterized in that the first compensating element and the second compensating element have a different value of a deformation constant.
Omori et al. (US 2021/0005920 A1) discloses a manufacturing apparatus includes a protruding portion molding member disposition mechanism, a tension damper, as well as an acceleration device, a metal roller and a rubber roller, and a cutting mechanism which serves as a laminating mechanism. A separator web and an electrode web are joined having the protruding portion molding member interposed therebetween while the separator web is bent at the portion where the protruding portion molding member has been disposed, to laminate the separator web and the electrode web.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/J.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1782 /AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights