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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
The species as shown in Figure 2.
The species as shown in Figure 12.
The species as shown in Figure 13.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, claim 1 is a generic claim.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I discloses the deformation preventing portion is a concave portion which is formed in the rigid body and/or the end plate and into which an outer periphery of the elastic body is fitted.
Group II discloses the deformation preventing portion is an outer peripheral portion that covers an outer periphery of the elastic body and is formed of a material having an elastic modulus higher than that of the elastic body.
Group III discloses the deformation preventing portion is a fibrous material disposed in a mesh shape inside the elastic body.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Francine Nesti on February 11, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-2. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is:
“a fastening member configured to fasten” in claim 1, line 7, with “fastening member” being the generic placeholder not preceded by a structural modifier, and "to fasten” being the coupled functional language.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for the generic placeholder "fastening member" is being interpreted as fastening bolt 21 and nut 22 as shown in Fig. 1 and as described in paragraph 10 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function SO as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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”) (WO 2018/224451 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 “step type cell” in the abstract, which inherently includes an electrode portion 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 (4) is disposed at at least one of positions sandwiched between the end plate (1) and the structure (B) (fig. 2),
a rigid body (2) is disposed at a position sandwiched between the clastic body (4) and the structure (B) (fig. 2), and
any one of the end plate, the elastic body, and the rigid 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).
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
371
743
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show:
US 3,287,486 discloses a pressurized structure comprising a fastening member for fastening a pair of end plates to each other (figs. 1A and 1B).
US 2010/0216048 A1 discloses a pressurized structure comprising a fastening member (7) for fastening a pair of end plates to each other to pressurize a fuel cell (see abstract) (figs. 1).
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