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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 18, 2026 has been entered and considered and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 14, after the second occurrence “direction”, a comma should be added.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the amended limitations, “accommodated inside” (see lines 16 and 18) is considered as new matter. While the original disclosure mentioned the outer shape in plan view (for example, in paragraph 13), the original disclosure does not use the word, “inside”. The word, “inside” is very broad and it could be interpreted that the outer shape of the electrode portion is positioned within the elastic body or the rigid body, which it does not. Therefore, the limitation, “inside” is considered as new matter.
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 1-2 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 18, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the electrode portions” in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (hereinafter "Zhou") (US 2017/0271710 A1) in view of Montan et al. (hereinafter "Montan") (WO2018/224451 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a pressurizing structure for a storage battery which applies pressure in a thickness direction to a structure (B) including a storage battery cell (see para. 38) including an electrode portion (see the drawing below, the abstract discloses a "step type cell", which inherently includes an electrode portion (see the drawing below) because the electrode is an essential component of the battery cell, as it is responsible for the electrochemical reactions that occur within the cell) with a laminate exterior material (see a top portion of the structure B in fig. 5), the pressurizing structure comprising:
a pair of end plates (1 and A) disposed at corresponding two ends of the structure (B) in the thickness direction (fig. 2);
wherein an elastic body (see the right most spring 4 in fig. 6 and the drawing below) is disposed at a position sandwiched between the end plate (1) and the structure (B) (fig. 6),
a rigid body (see the right most rigid body 2 in fig. 6 and the drawing below) is disposed at a position sandwiched between the elastic body (the right most spring 4 in fig. 6) and the structure (B) (fig. 6),
the elastic body further includes a deformation preventing portion (see the drawing below) configured to prevent deformation of the elastic body (4) in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction (see the drawing below),
the elastic body (the right most spring 4 in fig. 6 and in the drawing below) is arranged so that an outer shape (see the drawing below) of the electrode portion in a plan view is accommodated inside (i.e. inside with respect to the boundary of the structure) the outer shape of the elastic body in the plan view (see the drawing below), and
the rigid body (see the right most rigid body 2 in fig. 6 and the drawing below) is arranged so that the outer shape (see the drawing below) of the elastic body in the plan view and the outer shape (see the drawing below) of the electrode portion in the plan view are accommodated inside (i.e. inside with respect to the boundary of the structure) the outer shape of the rigid body in the plan view (see the drawing below).
Zhou discloses the end plate (1) of the pressuring structure slides down to press the structure (B) (para. 37-38). Zhou does not expressly disclose a fastening member configured to fasten the pair of end plates to each other.
Montan discloses a pressurizing structure comprising a pair of end plates (14 and 16) disposed at corresponding two ends of a battery cell structure (12) in the thickness direction to exert compression force on the structure (see abstract), fastening members (18) configured to fasten the pair of end plates to each other in order to pressurize the battery cells as uniform as possible (see page 6 last paragraph of the English translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end plates of Zhou to include fastening members, as taught by Montan, in order to pressurize the battery cells as uniform as possible.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the pressurizing structure for a storage battery according to claim 1, wherein the deformation preventing portion is a concave portion (see the drawing above) which is formed in the rigid body (2) (see the drawing above) and into which an outer periphery of the elastic body (4) is fitted (see the drawing above).
Response to Arguments
In Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026, Applicant argued that Zhou (US 2017/0271710 A1) no longer discloses subject matter as amended in claim 1. With respect to Applicant’s assertion, this argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive because Zhou discloses the amended claimed subject matter of claim 1 based on the claim interpretation as set forth in the rejection above.
Since the claim does not define that each of the elastic body and the rigid body extended from one end of the battery cell to the other end of the battery cell, as shown in figure 4 of the instant invention, the Examiner interprets the right most elastic body (4) and the right most rigid body (2) (see figure 6 and the drawing above) of Zhou as the elastic body and the rigid body as claimed. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter of claim 1 reads on Zhou using the right most elastic body (4) and the right most rigid body (2) as set forth in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights