DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-53 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 28, lines 18 and 20, the recitation “in a planer contact” should be corrected to “in a planar contact”.
The same issue is present in claim 32, lines 8, 10, 12 and 14.
Claims 29-53 inherit the deficiencies in claim 28 noted above and are thus objected to for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 29 and 50 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.
In claim 29, the recitation “only the first conditional plate and the second conditional plate are assigned to each test device” suggests there are more than one test device. However, claim 28 introduces a single test device. Thus, it’s not clear if the claim scope is intended to encompass a single test device or a plurality of test devices.
Regarding claim 50, the recitation “the battery cells” lacks antecedent basis. Independent claim 28 introduces a single battery cell. Furthermore, claim 28 describes the pressure plates being arranged so that the battery cell is clamped therebetween. Thus, it’s not clear how a plurality of battery cells can be clamped by pressure plates, while also be positioned so as to be interposed between them, as recited in claim 50.
Appropriate correction required.
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(s) 27, 30, 34-35, 41, 43 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2023/0073815 by Kim et al., (Kim hereafter).
Regarding claim 27, Kim teaches in figure 3, a battery cell test unit comprising:
two pressure plates (first plate comprising portion 221 + upper portion 250, second plate comprising portion 222 + lower portion 250) comprising,
a battery cell (210) which is clamped between the two pressure plates, the battery cell and the two pressure plates together forming a test device;
a test unit housing (240);
an electrical connection device (230) which is configured to electrically contact the battery cell in the test unit housing (paragraph 0070, line 4); and
conditioning plates (upper and lower 282) which are arranged in the test unit housing and to abut in a planar contact from opposite sides against two outward-facing surfaces of the two pressure plates during a test (as illustrated in Figure 3. See comments below).
**Comments: It’s noted that the term “abut” as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary and interpreted by the examiner, means: “to cause to touch or lean for support”. Because the first and second conditioning plate is caused to touch the first and second pressure plate respectively, the conditional plates abut in a planar contact as recited.
Regarding claim 28, Kim teaches in Figure 3, a battery cell test unit comprising:
a battery cell (210);
pressure plates (first plate comprising portion 221 + upper portion 250, second plate comprising portion 222 + lower portion 250) comprising,
a first pressure plate (first plate comprising portion 221 + upper thermoelectric element 250) comprising surfaces comprising a first surface (surface facing upper cooling plate 282) and a second surface (surface facing battery cell 210) each of which face outwards and which are opposite to each other, and
a second pressure plate (second plate comprising portion 222 + lower thermoelectric element 250) comprising surfaces comprising a first surface (surface facing battery cell 210) and a second surface (surface facing lower cooling plate 282) each of which face outwards and which are opposite to each other, the first pressure plate and the second pressure plate being arranged so that so that the battery cell is clamped therebetween (paragraph 0070, lines 1-4), the first pressure plate, the second pressure plate and the battery cell together forming a test device;
a test unit housing (240);
an electrical connection device (230) which is configured to electrically contact the battery cell in the test unit housing (paragraph 0070, line 4); and
conditioning plates (upper plate 282 and lower plate 282) arranged in the test unit housing, the conditioning plates comprising a first conditioning plate (upper plate 282) comprising a first side (side facing towards the battery), and a second conditioning plate (lower plate 282) comprising a second side (side facing towards the battery),
wherein, during a test, the first side of the first conditioning plate is arranged to abut in a planar contact with the first surface of at least one of the first pressure plate and the second pressure plate (as shown in Figure 3, the first side abuts with the first surface of the first pressure plate), and the second side of the second conditioning plate is arranged to abut in a planar contact with the second surface of at least one of the first pressure plate and the second pressure plate (as shown in Figure 3, the second side abuts with the second surface of the second pressure plate. ** See comments below).
**Comments: It’s noted that the term “abut” as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary and interpreted by the examiner, means: “to cause to touch or lean for support”. Because the first and second conditioning plate is caused to touch the first and second pressure plate respectively, the first and second conditioning plates abut in a planar contact as recited.
Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches in Figure 3, the battery cell test unit as recited in claim 28, wherein, the first surface (upper surface) and the second surface (lower surface) of the first pressure plate is provided as a narrow surface (**see comments below), and the first surface (upper surface) and the second surface (lower surface) of the second pressure plate is provided as a narrow surface.
** Comments: It’s noted that the claim doesn’t define any dimensions that a surface must meet in order to be considered a “narrow surface”. Thus, given the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second surfaces of both the first and second pressure plate are considered “narrow” compared to, for example, the outer surface of the chamber 240.
As to claim 34, Kim teaches each of the conditioning plates further comprises an inlet, an outlet, and an inner channel which is configured so that a conditioning medium can flow from the inlet to the outlet (the inside of the upper portion 282 and lower portion 282 of the conditioning plates includes a flow path through which refrigerant moves; see paragraph 0074, last four lines).
As to claim 35, Kim teaches the inlet and the outlet are each connected to a conditioning unit which is configured to regulate a temperature of the conditioning medium (portions 282 are connected to a refrigerant supply source 281; see paragraph 0074, last four lines).
As to claim 41, Kim shows in Figure 3, the battery cell test unit as recited in claim 28, wherein the conditioning plates (upper and lower 282) are shaped to correspond to the surfaces of the pressure plates.
As to claim 43, the recitation: “wherein the conditioning plates are configured to be floatingly guided to the test unit housing.” appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Kim teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the conditional plates may be guided (by hand or a handler), to the test unit during manufacture/assembly in the manner recited, Kim anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 51, Kim teaches the pressure plates are made of a material which has a thermal conductivity of more than 100 W/m*K (plates 221 and 222 are made of aluminum, which exhibits a typical range of thermal conductivity at room temperature of 205-237 W/m*K. See paragraph 0071, lines 5-6).
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.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2020/0011894 by Hojo, (Hojo hereafter).
Regarding claim 49, Kim substantially teaches all of the claimed elements as discussed above, except for mentioning the pressure plates comprise holes through which screws protrude so that the battery cell is clampable between the pressure plates.
Hojo teaches in Figure 3, a battery inspection arrangement including pressure plates (22a and 22b) that clamp a battery under inspection (10). Hojo further teaches the use of holes (22h) through which screws protrude (24) so that the battery cell is clampable between the pressure plates.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of screws holding plates together as taught by Hojo, in the device/system/method of Kim, in order to ensure the plates are firmly fixed to the upper and lower surfaces of the battery under inspection.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of the Korean publication KR20190069882-A by Ko (Ko hereafter). Please refer to the copy of the foreign document and partial translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 36, in addition to that stated in the rejection of claim 34 above, Kim substantially teaches all of the recited elements except for webs formed in each inner channel of the conditioning plates.
Ko et al. teaches in Figures 1 and 2, a battery testing arrangement including a battery under inspection (10) positioned between conditioning plates (201, 202). Furthermore, Ko teaches the use of webs (protrusions 255; see page 4 of the attached translation, lines 16-18) within inner channels of the conditioning plates.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of webs formed in inner channel of conditioning plates as taught by Ko, in the device/system/method of Kim, in order to increase the surface area that the refrigerant contacts while flowing through the channel, maximizing refrigerant cooling efficiency.
Claim(s) 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2017/0074634 by Yoon et al., (Yoon hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 37, Kim substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the battery cell test unit as recited in claim 28, further comprises an actuator which is configured to move the conditioning plates in the battery cell test unit against a respective pressure plate of the pressure plates, wherein, the actuator is an electric actuator.
Yoon teaches the use of an electric actuator (46+44) configured to move a conditioning plate (30) with respect to a battery under inspection (10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of electric actuator as taught by Yoon, in the device/system/method of Kim, in order to provide a means for precise displacement and force on the conditioning plates as they’re displaced and positioned on the pressure plates and/or battery of Kim’s system.
As to claims 38 and 39, Yoon teaches the conditioning plates are coupled to the actuator through elastic damping elements (springs 40) which allow the conditioning plate to be tiltable with respect to the actuator.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of the US Patent US 12,276,701 by Peter et al., (Peter hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 42, Kim substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning a linear guide which is configured to guide the conditioning plates in the battery cell test unit.
However, the use of linear guides facilitating the positioning of devices within a testing chamber is well known in the art. For example, Peter teaches in Figure 1B, a battery test chamber accommodating multiple batteries under inspection, clamped within plates that are positioned within the chamber with the aid of guides (see col. 6, lines 14-17: “The test surface has mounting provisions for installation of accessories, including risers for short batteries, cooling plates, compression plates, and battery guides to ensure alignment”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of guides within test chambers ensuring the alignment of devices under test as taught by Peter, in the device/system/method of Kim, in order to gain the advantage of ensuring proper alignment of the plates within Kim’s test chamber (chamber 240 in Kim’s figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-33, 40, 44-48, 52-53 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim(s) 31, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the battery cell test unit as recited wherein, the surfaces of the first pressure plate further comprises four narrow surfaces, the four narrow surfaces comprising, a first longitudinal side surface as the first surface and a second longitudinal side surface as the second surface, the first longitudinal side surface and the second longitudinal side surface being parallel with respect to each other, and, the surfaces of the second pressure plate further comprises four narrow surfaces, the four narrow surfaces comprising, a first longitudinal side surface as the first surface and a second longitudinal side surface as the second surface, the first longitudinal side surface and the second longitudinal side surface being parallel with respect to each other, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim(s) 32-33, the claims are allowable as they recite the allowable subject matter in claim 31 noted above.
Regarding claim(s) 40, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the battery cell test unit as recited in claim 38, further comprising: a ball head connection which is configured to provide a tilting movement of the conditioning plates relative to the actuator, in combination with all other elements recited.
Regarding claim(s) 44, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the battery cell test unit as recited wherein, the first surface of each of the first pressure plate and the second pressure plate is a first longitudinal side surface, the second surface of each of the first pressure plate and the second pressure plate is a second longitudinal side surface, and
the test device is configured to be moved along a direction of extension of the first longitudinal side surface and of the second longitudinal side surface of the first pressure plate and of the second pressure plate via a transport device to a test location in the battery cell test unit, and
the first conditioning plate is movable against the first longitudinal side surface and the second conditioning plate is movable against the second longitudinal side surface at the test location, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim(s) 45-48, the claims are allowable as they recite the allowable subject matter in claim 44 noted above.
Regarding claim(s) 52, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a battery cell test system comprising: a plurality of the battery cell test units as recited in claim 28 which are arranged above or next to one another, wherein, the conditioning plates of at least a first battery cell test unit of the plurality of battery cell test units are conditioned to a first temperature, the conditioning plates of at least a second battery cell test unit of the plurality of battery cell test units are conditioned to a second temperature, and the first temperature is different from the second temperature, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 53, the claims are allowable as they recite the allowable subject matter in claim 52 noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 11,397,210 by Peter et al., directed to battery testing systems.
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 201/0178720 by Rentzsch et al., directed to temperature conditioned battery testing methods.
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2011/0232302 by Dallinger et al., directed to temperature-controlled battery testing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 October 15, 2026
