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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 17, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-17, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradwell et al. (US 2022/0255138 A1) in view of Bradwell et al. (US 2015/0004455 A1; hereinafter referred to as Bradwell2) as evidenced by Reliance ( "Standard Shipping Container Dimensions," https://reliancepartners.com/owner-operator/shipping-container/, August 31, 2018; retrieved February 2, 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Bradwell discloses an energy storage device comprising a casing having a battery compartment (container 1204) and a plurality of battery cells (1201) comprising a housing (cell housing 1004) and electrode terminals (conductor 1006 and surface of housing 1004) disposed on the housing (Bradwell Figs 10a, 10b, and 12; [0088] and [0104]).
Bradwell does not teach the claimed ratio of battery compartment volume to total cell housing volume. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the size of components (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the number of cells within the battery compartment by reducing the size of other components, including to values within the range of the instant claim.
Bradwell teaches that the container is a 10 foot shipping container (Bradwell [0105]). A 10 foot shipping container has a length of 10 feet (3 m), a width of 8 feet (2.4 m), and a height of 8.5 feet (2.6 m) (Reliance External Container Dimensions), for a volume of approximately 20 m3, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
The internal volume of a standard 10 foot shipping container is 560 ft3 (Reliance Internal Container Dimensions), or 15.7 m3, for a ratio V1/V of approximately 0.8. The containers of Bradwell are thermally insulated (Bradwell [0104]), so 0.8 is an upper limit on the ratio, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate insulation thickness for the container, including values that give ratios within the range of the instant claim.
Bradwell teaches that the device stores electricity from intermittent power sources for distribution to a power grid (Bradwell [0058]), which will necessarily include storing power generated during off-peak periods and supplying power during peak periods.
The cells of Bradwell are electrode assemblies accommodated in a housing (Bradwell Fig. 10b), and the housings are right parallelepipeds (i.e. with 3 pairs of opposing walls) (Bradwell Fig. 9A).
The cells of Bradwell comprise a container (the first 5 walls) and a lid assembly with a conductor aperture (i.e. the terminals) (Bradwell [0010]-[0011]).
Bradwell does not disclose any particular value for the wall thicknesses. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the thickness of the cell walls (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the energy density by reducing the cell wall thicknesses, including to values within the ranges of the instant claim.
The cells of Bradwell include an empty headspace (i.e. an assembly gap between the electrode assembly and the housing) of less than 2.5 cm (Bradwell [0102]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range of Bradwell, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Bradwell does not teach the use of insulating members at the fifth and sixth walls. Bradwell2 teaches that an electrically insulating sheath applied to appropriate cell housing walls can prevent electrical connection to the negative electrode when it extends the full length of the battery (Bradwell2 [0060]). For the vertical configuration battery of Bradwell (Bradwell Figs. 9A and 10B), such a sheath would be provided at the top and bottom walls (i.e. the fifth and sixth walls). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide an insulating sheath (i.e. an insulating member) at the top and bottom walls of the battery of Bradwell to allow the negative electrode to extend the full height of the battery without shorting.
Bradwell2 does not disclose any particular sheath thickness. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the thickness of components such as cell walls (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the energy density by reducing the cell wall and insulating sheath thicknesses, including to values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Bradwell does not teach the claimed ratio of battery compartment volume to total cell housing volume. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the size of components (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the number of cells within the battery compartment by reducing the size of other components, including to values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, the batteries used by Bradwell are all the same (Bradwell Fig. 12), so V2=V3*N1.
Regarding claim 4, Bradwell teaches that typical configuration may include 100 cells to a pack, with 20 packs in a core and 4 cores in the system (Bradwell [0040]-[0043]). That is 8000 cells in the system for a maximum ratio V3/V1 of 0.000125, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range of Bradwell, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Bradwell gives an example cell size of approximately 25 cm x 25 cm x 8 cm (Bradwell Fig. 9A, based on 14 cm long Sharpie pen), for V3=0.005 m3, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Bradwell does not teach the claimed ratio of battery compartment length to total cell housing length. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the size of components (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the number of cells within the battery compartment by reducing the size of other components, including to values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, the batteries used by Bradwell are all the same (Bradwell Fig. 12), so L2=L3*N2.
Regarding claim 10, Bradwell gives an example cell size of approximately 25 cm x 25 cm x 8 cm (Bradwell Fig. 9A, based on 14 cm long Sharpie pen). Bradwell doesn't teach any particular direction for arranging the cells within the casing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any orientation, including with the long edge parallel to the sides. This would give L3=0.25 m, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
The internal length of the standard 10 foot shipping container is 9'2" (Reliance Internal Container Dimensions), or 280 cm. With added insulation this gives L3/L1≤0.09, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any appropriate value for L3/L1, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, a 10 foot shipping container has a length of 10 feet (Reliance External Container Dimensions), or 3 m, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
The internal length of the standard 10 foot shipping container is 9'2" (Reliance Internal Container Dimensions), or 280 cm. With added insulation this gives L1/L≤0.933, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any appropriate value for L1/L, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Bradwell does not teach the claimed ratio of battery compartment width to total cell housing width. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the size of components (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the number of cells within the battery compartment by reducing the size of other components, including to values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, the batteries used by Bradwell are all the same (Bradwell Fig. 12), so D2=D3*N3.
Regarding claim 14, Bradwell gives an example cell size of approximately 25 cm x 25 cm x 8 cm (Bradwell Fig. 9A, based on 14 cm long Sharpie pen). Bradwell doesn't teach any particular direction for arranging the cells within the casing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any orientation, including with the long edge parallel to the sides. This would give D3=0.08 m, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
The internal width of the standard 10 foot shipping container is 7'7" (Reliance Internal Container Dimensions), or 230 cm. With added insulation this gives D3/D1≤0.035, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any appropriate value for D3/D1, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, a 10 foot shipping container has a width of 8 feet (Reliance External Container Dimensions), or 2.43 m, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
The internal width of the standard 10 foot shipping container is 7'7" (Reliance Internal Container Dimensions), or 230 cm. With added insulation this gives D1/D≤0.945, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any appropriate value for L1/L, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, the cells of Bradwell are electrode assemblies accommodated in a housing (Bradwell Fig. 10b), and the housings are right parallelepipeds with width W1=25 cm, thickness T1=8 cm, and height K1=25 cm (Bradwell Fig. 9A, based on 14 cm long Sharpie pen). Bradwell does not disclose any particular value for the wall thicknesses. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the thickness of the cell walls (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the energy density by reducing the cell wall thicknesses, including to values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Bradwell does not disclose any particular value for the wall thicknesses. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the thickness of the cell walls (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the energy density by reducing the cell wall thicknesses, including to values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Bradwell does not disclose any particular sheath thickness. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the thickness of components such as cell walls (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the energy density by reducing the cell wall and insulating sheath thicknesses, including to values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, the housings are right parallelepipeds with width W1=25 cm and thickness T1=8 cm (Bradwell Fig. 9A, based on 14 cm long Sharpie pen), so W1≥T1.
Regarding claim 22, the housings are right parallelepipeds with width W1=25 cm, thickness T1=8 cm, and height K1=25 cm (Bradwell Fig. 9A, based on 14 cm long Sharpie pen), for W1*T1*K1=0.005 m3, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latulipe et al. (US 2023/0170574 A1) in view of Reliance, Bradwell, and Yamawaki et al. (US 2017/0005301 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Latulipe discloses an energy storage system comprising a casing having a battery compartment (enclosure 100) and a plurality of battery cells (battery modules 122) accommodated within the battery compartment (Latulipe [0045] and Figs. 2 and 3).
Latulipe does not disclose any particular cells for use in the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any conventional battery cell, including one with electrode terminals disposed on the housing.
Latulipe teaches that the size of the unit may be similar to that of a shipping container. Reliance teaches that common shipping container sizes include 10 foot and 20 foot, with dimensions of 3 m x 2.44 m x 2.6 m (20 m3) and 6m x 2.44 m x 2.6 m (40 m3), respectively (Reliance External Container Dimensions), each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any conventional container size, including the 10 foot and 20 foot.
Latulipe does not teach any particular battery compartment volume or total battery cell volume. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the size of components and empty spaces (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the size of the battery compartment and the number of cells within the battery compartment by reducing the size of other components, including to values within the ranges of the instant claim.
Latulipe does teach any particular cell structure. Yamawaki is directed to an improved lithium-ion battery (Yamawaki [0005]-[0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any conventional cell for the battery of Latulipe, including the cells of Yamawaki, since Latulipe does not require any particular structure.
The cells of Yamawaki include a right prismatic housing with a housing body (2) having five integrally-formed walls and an opening accommodating a cap (3) as a sixth wall, and an assembly gap between the electrodes and cap, with first and second insulating members between the electrode assembly and lower wall (insulating sheet 14) and between the electrode assembly and cap (insulating member 10) (Yamawaki Figs. 2A and 2B, [0029]-[0036]). The insulating sheet has a thickness of 0.05-0.3 mm (Yamawaki [0049]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any thickness within the range of Yamawaki, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Yamawaki does not teach any particular dimensions of the cell walls, upper insulating member, or assembly gap. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the size of components and empty spaces (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the size of the battery compartment and the number of cells within the battery compartment by reducing the size of other components, including to values within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, modified Latulipe does not teach any particular battery compartment volume or total battery cell volume. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the size of components and empty spaces (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the size of the battery compartment and the number of cells within the battery compartment by reducing the size of other components, including to values within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, modified Latulipe does not teach any particular dimensions of the cells. Bradwell teaches that energy density may be maximized by reducing the size of components and empty spaces (Bradwell [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize the size of the battery compartment and the number of cells within the battery compartment by reducing the size of other components, including to values within the ranges of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latulipe in view of Reliance, Bradwell, and Yamawaki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of QuantumScape ("Energy density: Active materials & electrode loading," https://www.quantumscape.com/resources/blog/energy-density-active-materials-electrode-loading, May 2023).
Regarding claim 23, Latulipe teaches that lithium iron phosphate batteries are among the safest lithium-ion batteries (Latulipe [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use lithium iron phosphate batteries to improve safety.
Latulipe does not teach the claimed volumetric capacity. QuantumScape teaches that it is desirable to maximize energy density (QuantumScape, Active vs inactive materials), including to values as high as 750 Wh/L (QuantumScape, Active vs inactive materials), or approximately 170 Ah/L for a lithium battery, which falls within the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize density, including to values within the range of the instant claim, since QuantumScape teaches that it is desirable.
Latulipe does not teach the claimed capacity. However, for a given density, change in capacity is equivalent to a change in size, and changes in size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and MPEP 2144.04 IV A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any appropriate size for the battery cells, including sizes that give capacities within the range of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights