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 .
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 1, 4-11, 14-18 and 20 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is indefinite as to how much space the shuttle assemblies and battery backup units should fill of the container and its respective bays in order to be considered "substantially filled." For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could consider a space that is over 50% filled to be "substantially" filled, because a majority of the space is being utilized. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art could require a certain distance from walls of the container, such that "substantial" space is filled but a margin is left to account for expansion in a thermal event. Therefore, the required volume of space is unclear and the claims are rendered indefinite.
Claims 4-10, 14-18 and 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skjetne (GB 2561208 A) in view of Shao et al. (US 20210249639 A1), Hayashi (US 20100112424 A1), and Subramanian et al. (US 20150340671 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Skjetne discloses a container for storage of one more electrical energy storage devices (Abstract). In one embodiment, Skjetne discloses a container 20 comprised of walls 22 to form an enclosure. At least one wall 21 of the enclosure is configured to allow access to the container and may take the form of a hinged door, for example (pg. 4, L28-30; Fig. 2). The walls and door of the container may be metal (e.g., aluminum), fiberglass, Kevlar, or plastics. The walls of the container may be additionally comprised of thermal insulation, such as polymer foam, to provide thermally insulating and shock absorbing properties (e.g., polyethylene foam plates) (pg. 5, L19-33). The container also has racking 23 for mounting each battery 24 (pg. 5, L2-3). Skjetne further teaches that the container may range from small scale, housing a single battery or relatively small number of batteries, up to a large-scale transport, based on a standard ISO container (e.g., 10ft, 20 ft, 40 ft, ISO containers). In a larger scale solution, the container may be modified to include internal thermal insulation plates mounted to an internal rigid frame fixed to the walls (pg. 7, L12-18). The rigid frame may additionally be aluminum (pg. 6, L3-5).
It would accordingly be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select aluminum as the walls and rigid frame of a large-scale container, as taught by Skjetne, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing suitable materials for insulating and shock absorbing purposes. It is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Skjetne fails to disclose an embodiment wherein the container comprises vertical dividers positioned between the top, front, rear, and sides of the container. However, Shao discloses a battery backup unit (BBU) shelf with a fire extinguishing system ([0024]). The container (2) includes one or more BBUs (5a-5n) wherein each BBU includes a battery module (8) and a temperature sensor (9, [0028]). The container shown in Fig. 2 is a rectangular box and includes three rows (20a-20c), each of which may hold one or more BBUs ([0029]). Additionally, each row may be partitioned into slots such that at least some BBUs that are housed in the BBU shelf are separate from other BBUs. Furthermore, the container is provided with an opening (21) through which forced air may be supplied to cool the BBUs ([0039]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include multiple batteries on a single level of the racking of Shao and to separate said batteries with partitions, as taught by Shao, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a suitable racking structure for holding the desired number of batteries in accordance with the design requirements of the container.
Thus, modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitations “A battery backup unit storage container (container 20) comprising:
a top, front, rear, sides and a base, and a shuttle assembly (rigid frame attached to the walls of the container);
a plurality of vertical dividers (rigid frame acts as vertical dividers for the batteries on the sides of the racking);
the shuttle assembly and the plurality of vertical dividers being positioned between the top, front, rear, and sides (partition walls between batteries on racking 23), when the container is in a closed condition such that a space defined by the top, front, rear, sides and base is substantially filled by the shuttle assembly and the plurality of vertical dividers (see Skjetne Fig. 2);
the shuttle assembly comprising a plurality of bays (the container having partition walls on each racking 23 contains slots for the batteries), each of the bays comprising bay walls, the bay walls of each bay comprising a top wall, side walls, a bottom wall, and a rear wall, the rear wall abutting each of the side walls and the top and bottom walls;
the side walls, top wall and bottom wall defining a respective front bay opening (opening to the slot covered by door 21 where the battery is inserted):
each of the bays being adapted to receive and store a battery backup unit such that, when the container is in an open condition, the battery backup unit can be inserted through the respective front bay opening and positioned within the respective bay
and such that when the battery backup unit is positioned within the respective bay, the battery backup unit substantially fills the respective bay (see Skjetne Fig. 2 and Shao Fig. 2);
one or more of the top, front, rear, or sides being directly or indirectly hingedly attached to the base (hinged door 21) such that the container can be selectively placed in the closed condition or the open condition;
at least one of the plurality of vertical dividers being electrically conductive (rigid frame comprises aluminum);
an exterior of the container being electrically conductive (exterior of the container comprises aluminum).”
The examiner notes that the claim limitation “shuttle assembly” is interpreted as a sub-container that holds a set of batteries in light of ([0026], Fig. 4) of the pre-grant publication, US 20220123398 A1, for the instant application. In the case of a single shuttle assembly, it is the examiner’s position that the rigid frame within the container may be considered the single shuttle assembly. In an embodiment having two or more shuttle assemblies, the assemblies are interpreted such that there is a distinct separation between frames of the sub-containers within the container.
Skjetne further discloses that the batteries in the container may be provided with internal temperature sensors and that data from these sensors may be used to control temperature within the container. For example, cooling fluid may be circulated around the battery via an inlet and outlet which connect to a source of cooling fluid in the container (pg. 6, para. 2). Thus, it is the examiner’s position that such a cooling system is fully enclosed within the container, and could operate when the container is in a closed condition.
Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “being structured and arranged to passively prevent thermal runaway propagation from one of the bays to another of the bays” because the cooling system would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent thermal runaway. Each of the batteries is provided with a temperature sensor, which would allow the cooling system to circulate cooling fluid in one of the bays before it has the opportunity to propagate to another bay.
Modified Skjetne fails to disclose wherein the container is grounded to discharge static electricity within the container. However, Hayashi teaches a battery pack housing lithium-ion battery (20, [0021]). The battery pack includes a battery casing (31) made of an electrically conductive material and is electrically grounded via restraint bands (50) fixed to the casing ([0030]). Hayashi teaches that this configuration prevents electric shock in the case of an electrolyte leak from a battery ([0035]).
Although the disclosure of Hayashi is drawn to a battery pack wherein the batteries and conventionally interconnected, it is the examiner’s position that the teachings of Hayashi may be nonetheless applied to the related battery storage container of Modified Skjetne. In particular, the grounding of the container may be a suitable safety measure in the case of external impact that may lead to electrolyte leakage from the batteries.
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Skjetne such that the external walls of the container are electrically grounded with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing electric shock in the event of a short-circuit within the container. Therefore, modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “the container being grounded such that static electricity within the container can be discharged.”
In the embodiment discussed above, the shuttle assembly comprises a rigid frame attached to the walls of the container. Skjetne further teaches that a stack of batteries may be modularized once removed from the container (Fig. 6). Modified Skjetne fails to disclose wherein the container is comprised of a windowpane divider, wherein “windowpane divider” is interpreted as set forth in the previous Office Action as a divider with cutouts, and further fails to clearly disclose electrical isolation between battery units.
Subramanian et al. discloses a battery pack (24) that includes cell arrays (44a, 44b), and retaining members (56). The cell stack unit is formed by stacking a plurality of battery cells (42), where spacers (46) are positioned between adjacent cells and serve as insulators that minimize current transmission between cells ([0018]). Each array includes a top surface (43), a bottom surface (45), opposing sides (52, 54), and end plates (55a, 55b, and others not shown, [0018]; Figs. 2, 4). Each retaining member cooperates with associated top surfaces and bottom surfaces of the battery cells of an array, and further includes four gussets (58), wherein a fastener (60) may be inserted through each gusset to engage a corresponding threaded hole of an associated end plate to secure the retaining member to the plurality of cells within the array ([0019]; Figs. 2, 4). Sides of the cell stack units abut a side surface of the retaining members such that the cell stack units are accommodated in a space defined by the retaining members (Figs. 2, 4). Subramanian further discloses that each retaining member also includes a series of cooling airflow windows (62a-i, [0020]; Fig. 3), a top flange (82), a bottom flange (76), and a plurality of extensions or tabs (86), wherein the tabs are arranged to cooperate with complementary tabs formed by the top flange of a neighboring retaining member such that they would interlock and form a substantially flat and continuous surface, thus providing additional structural support to subassemblies which have multiple adjacent arrays ([0024]; Figs. 2-3). Columns between each window (62a-i) can be seen in Figure 3. Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that the extensions or tabs disclosed by Subramanian form perimeter cutouts along the top and bottom flanges.
Although the disclosure of Subramanian is drawn to a battery pack wherein the batteries are conventionally interconnected, it is the examiner’s position that the teachings of Subramanian may be nonetheless applied to the related battery storage container of Modified Skjetne. In particular, in a large-scale storage container, the container may be comprised of two stacks of batteries that may be connected via interlocking retaining members, as taught by Subramanian.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add electrically insulating spacers, as taught by Subramanian, to the battery pack of modified Skjetne, to minimize undesired current transmission between cells as taught by Subramanian. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Electrical isolation is achieved when current transmission between cells reaches the minimal value of zero. Thus, modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitation “the battery backup unit is electrically isolated from other battery backup units stored within the container.”
It further would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add cooling airflow windows, as taught by Subramanian to the dividers of Modified Skjetne with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a suitable alternative for cooling the batteries held within the storage container, as taught to be desirable for temperature management by Skjetne. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143.02). In the embodiment above, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include a window part for each racking element (23) in the container so that contact is maintained between the batteries and the cooling liquid.
Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitation “the plurality of vertical dividers comprising a windowpane divider (the cooling window is adjacent the frame surrounding the batteries) and an intermediate divider, (partition walls between batteries on the same racking taught by Shao, as set forth above) … the windowpane divider further comprising columns defining a plurality of through openings aligned with the bays (each racking has a window that exposes all the bays).”
The retaining members, as taught by Subramanian above in the analysis of claim 1, are between the two modules and are vertical dividers. Thus, it appears that modified Skjetne provides that the windowpane divider (the cooling window is adjacent the frame surrounding the batteries) is positioned immediately adjacent to the shuttle assembly and the intermediate divider (partition walls between batteries on the same racking taught by Shao, as set forth above) such that the windowpane divider is sandwiched between the shuttle assembly and the intermediate divider. However, even if this is not the case, the Courts have held that the rearrangement of parts is rendered obvious when the arrangement would not modify the operation of the device (see MPEP § 2144.04). In the instant case, this configuration would be obvious because the windowpane dividers allow for cooling of the batteries, while the intermediate dividers and the shuttle assembly provide a more rigid structure which supports the windowpane dividers, while also partitioning and isolating the battery units.
Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “the plurality of vertical dividers comprising a windowpane divider, the windowpane divider being positioned immediately adjacent to the shuttle assembly and the intermediate divider such that the windowpane divider is sandwiched between the shuttle assembly and the intermediate divider”.
Furthermore, since vertical dividers comprising perimeter cutouts are assembled with the top and base in the structure of Subramanian, and Figure 4 of Subramanian shows that each divider is engaged with the top and base including portions that can be seen to serve as support (the structure is not completely planar), the structure of Subramanian can be seen to "receive respective support members of top and base such that the respective support members nest with the respective perimeter cutouts".
It would accordingly be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Skjetne such that two modules are housed within the container and separated by retaining members, wherein the retaining members comprise perimeter cutouts arranged to nest with respective support members as taught by Subramanian, to provide additional structural support and connect adjacent units with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitations “the windowpane divider comprising perimeter cutouts structured and arranged to receive respective support members of the top and base such that the respective support members nest within the respective perimeter cutouts”.
Regarding claim 4, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 1, as set forth above. Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitations “the plurality of vertical dividers further comprising a central divider (retaining member taught by Subramanian, as set forth above in the analysis of claim 1), the intermediate divider being positioned between the central divider and the windowpane divider.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 4, as set forth above. Skjetne further teaches that the internal rigid frame may be mounted with polyethylene foam plates to have suitable insulating and shock absorbing properties (pg. 6, L1). Furthermore, the foam plates offer a very lightweight design (pg. 5, para. 3). While Skjetne does not explicitly disclose that the polyethylene foam plates have electrostatic discharge properties, the instant specification identifies closed cell polyethylene as the divider material in the preferred embodiment (pgs. 6, 16). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Modified Skjetne such that the walls and the rigid frame mounted to the walls are provided with polyethylene foam plates, as taught by Skjetne, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing suitable shock absorbing and insulating properties. It would further be obvious to construct the partition walls of Modified Skjetne with the foam plates with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a lightweight partition wall with suitable insulating properties between battery slots, as taught by Skjetne.
Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitation “the windowpane divider, the intermediate divider, and the central divider each comprising electrostatic discharge (ESD) foam.”
Regarding claim 7, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit container according to claim 1, as set forth above. Modified Skjetne further renders obvious the claim limitation “wherein the front is hingedly moveable such that when the front is in a first position the battery backup unit container is in the closed condition and when in a second position, the battery backup unit container is in the open condition” because the front wall (21) is a hingedly movable door, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 1, as set forth above. Modified Skjetne further renders obvious an embodiment comprising two modules with two hinged doors allowing access to its respective module, as set forth in the analysis of claim 1 above. Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “the rear being hingedly moveable from a first position to a second position.”
Regarding claim 11, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 1, as set forth above. Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitations “A battery backup unit storage container (container 20) comprising: a top, front, rear, sides and a base, and first and second shuttle assemblies (two modules may be split with a retaining member, as taught by Subramanian in the analysis of claim 1 above);
a plurality of vertical dividers (rigid frame acts as vertical dividers for the batteries on the sides of the racking);
the shuttle assemblies and the plurality of vertical dividers being positioned between the top, front, rear, and sides (partition walls between batteries on racking 23), when the container is in a closed condition such that a space defined by the top, front, rear, sides and base is substantially filled by the first and second shuttle assemblies and the plurality of vertical dividers (see Skjetne Fig. 2);
the shuttle assemblies comprising a plurality of bays (the container having partition walls on each racking 23 contains slots for the batteries), each of the bays comprising bay walls, the bay walls of each bay comprising a top wall, side walls, a bottom wall, and a rear wall, the rear wall abutting each of the side walls and the top and bottom walls;
the side walls, top wall and bottom wall defining a respective front bay opening (opening to the slot covered by door 21 where the battery is inserted);
each of the bays being adapted to receive and store a respective battery backup unit such that, when the container is in an open condition, the respective battery backup unit can be inserted through the respective front bay opening and positioned within the respective bay
and such that when the battery backup unit is positioned within the respective bay, the battery backup unit substantially fills the respective bay (see Skjetne Fig. 2 and Shao Fig. 2);
the front and rear (the front and duplicated rear door are hingedly movable, as rendered obvious in the analysis of claim 2 above) being directly or indirectly hingedly attached to the base such that the container can be selectively placed in the closed condition or the open condition;
at least one of the plurality of vertical dividers being electrically conductive (rigid frame comprises aluminum);
an exterior of the container being electrically conductive (exterior of the container comprises aluminum); and
the container being grounded such that static electricity within the container can be discharged.”
Skjetne further discloses that the batteries in the container may be provided with internal temperature sensors and that data from these sensors may be used to control temperature within the container. For example, cooling fluid may be circulated around the battery via an inlet and outlet which connect to a source of cooling fluid in the container (pg. 6, para. 2). Thus, it is the examiner’s position that such a cooling system is fully enclosed within the container, and could operate when the container is in a closed condition.
Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “being structured and arranged to passively prevent thermal runaway propagation from one of the bays to another of the bays” because the cooling system would be reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent thermal runaway. Each of the batteries is provided with a temperature sensor, which would allow the cooling system to circulate cooling fluid in one of the bays before it has the opportunity to propagate to another bay.
Skjetne fails to disclose wherein the container is comprised of a windowpane divider wherein “windowpane divider” is interpreted as set forth in the previous Office Action as a divider with cutouts, and further fails to clearly disclose electrical isolation between battery units.
Subramanian et al. discloses a battery pack (24) that includes cell arrays (44a, 44b), and retaining members (56). The cell stack unit is formed by stacking a plurality of battery cells (42), where spacers (46) are positioned between adjacent cells and serve as insulators that minimize current transmission between cells ([0018]). Each array includes a top surface (43), a bottom surface (45), opposing sides (52, 54), and end plates (55a, 55b, and others not shown, [0018]; Figs. 2, 4). Each retaining member cooperates with associated top surfaces and bottom surfaces of the battery cells of an array, and further includes four gussets (58), wherein a fastener (60) may be inserted through each gusset to engage a corresponding threaded hole of an associated end plate to secure the retaining member to the plurality of cells within the array ([0019]; Figs. 2, 4). Sides of the cell stack units abut a side surface of the retaining members such that the cell stack units are accommodated in a space defined by the retaining members (Figs. 2, 4). Subramanian further discloses that each retaining member also includes a series of cooling airflow windows (62a-i, [0020]; Fig. 3), a top flange (82), a bottom flange (76), and a plurality of extensions or tabs (86), wherein the tabs are arranged to cooperate with complementary tabs formed by the top flange of a neighboring retaining member such that they would interlock and form a substantially flat and continuous surface, thus providing additional structural support to subassemblies which have multiple adjacent arrays ([0024]; Figs. 2-3). Columns between each window (62a-i) can be seen in Figure 3. Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that the extensions or tabs disclosed by Subramanian form perimeter cutouts along the top and bottom flanges.
Although the disclosure of Subramanian is drawn to a battery pack wherein the batteries are conventionally interconnected, it is the examiner’s position that the teachings of Subramanian may be nonetheless applied to the related battery storage container of Modified Skjetne. In particular, in a large-scale storage container, the container may be comprised of two stacks of batteries that may be connected via interlocking retaining members, as taught by Subramanian.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add electrically insulating spacers, as taught by Subramanian, to the battery pack of modified Skjetne, to minimize undesired current transmission between cells as taught by Subramanian. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Electrical isolation is achieved when current transmission between cells reaches the minimal value of zero. Thus, modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitation “the respective battery backup unit is electrically isolated from other battery backup units stored within the container.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add cooling airflow windows, as taught by Subramanian to the dividers of Modified Skjetne with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a suitable alternative for cooling the batteries held within the storage container, as taught to be desirable for temperature management by Skjetne. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143.02). In the embodiment above, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include a window part for each racking element (23) in the container so that contact is maintained between the batteries and the cooling liquid.
Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitation “the plurality of vertical dividers comprising first and second windowpane dividers (the cooling windows are adjacent to the frame surrounding the batteries), and first and second intermediate dividers, (partition walls between batteries on the same racking taught by Shao, as set forth above in the analysis of claim 1) … the windowpane dividers each further comprising columns defining a plurality of respective through openings aligned with the respective bays (each racking has a window that exposes all the bays).”
The retaining members, as taught by Subramanian above in the analysis of claim 1, are between the two modules and are vertical dividers. Thus, it appears that modified Skjetne provides that the first and second windowpane dividers (the cooling window is adjacent the frame surrounding the batteries) are positioned immediately adjacent to their respective shuttle assemblies and intermediate dividers (partition walls between batteries on the same racking taught by Shao, as set forth above) such that the first and second windowpane dividers are sandwiched between their respective shuttle assemblies and intermediate dividers. However, even if this is not the case, the Courts have held that the rearrangement of parts is rendered obvious when the arrangement would not modify the operation of the device (see MPEP § 2144.04). In the instant case, this configuration would be obvious because the windowpane dividers allow for cooling of the batteries, while the intermediate dividers and shuttle assemblies provide a more rigid structure which supports the windowpane dividers, while also partitioning and isolating the battery units.
Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “the plurality of vertical dividers comprising first and second windowpane dividers, the first windowpane divider being positioned immediately adjacent to the first shuttle assembly (the cooling window is adjacent the frame surrounding the batteries) and the first intermediate divider such that the first windowpane divider is sandwiched between the first shuttle assembly and the first intermediate divider, the second windowpane divider being positioned immediately adjacent to the second shuttle assembly and the second intermediate divider such that the second windowpane divider is sandwiched between the second shuttle assembly and the second intermediate divider”.
Furthermore, since vertical dividers comprising perimeter cutouts are assembled with the top and base in the structure of Subramanian, and Figure 4 of Subramanian shows that each divider is engaged with the top and base including portions that can be seen to serve as support (the structure is not completely planar), the structure of Subramanian can be seen to "receive respective support members of top and base such that the respective support members nest with the respective perimeter cutouts".
It would accordingly be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Skjetne such that two modules are housed within the container and separated by retaining members, wherein the retaining members comprise perimeter cutouts arranged to nest with respective support members as taught by Subramanian, to provide additional structural support and connect adjacent units with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitations “the windowpane dividers each comprising perimeter cutouts structured and arranged to receive respective support members of the top and base such that the respective support members nest within the respective perimeter cutouts”.
Regarding claim 14, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 11, as set forth above. Subramanian further teaches an embodiment in which the battery cells are divided into two arrays by a plurality of retaining members (56, [0018]; Figs. 2, 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the add additional retaining members to Modified Skjetne such that the battery cells would be modularized and separated into two sections, as taught by Subramanian, with a reasonable expectation of success of providing two arrays for two separate applications according to design requirements. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitations “the plurality of vertical dividers further comprising first and second central dividers (retaining members taught by Subramanian used to separate into two modules), the first intermediate divider being positioned between the first central divider and the first windowpane divider, the second intermediate divider being positioned between the second central divider and the second windowpane divider.”
Regarding claim 15, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 14, as set forth above. Skjetne further teaches that the internal rigid frame may be mounted with polyethylene foam plates to have suitable insulating and shock absorbing properties (pg. 6, L1). Furthermore, the foam plates offer a very lightweight design (pg. 5, para. 3). While Skjetne does not explicitly disclose that the polyethylene foam plates have electrostatic discharge properties, the instant specification identifies closed cell polyethylene as the divider material in the preferred embodiment (pgs. 6, 16). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Modified Skjetne such that the walls and the rigid frame mounted to the walls are provided with polyethylene foam plates, as taught by Skjetne, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing suitable shock absorbing and insulating properties. It would further be obvious to construct the partition walls of Modified Skjetne with the foam plates with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a lightweight partition wall with suitable insulating properties between battery slots, as taught by Skjetne.
Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitation “the windowpane dividers, the intermediate dividers, and the central dividers each comprising electrostatic discharge (ESD) foam.
Regarding claim 17, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 11, as set forth above. Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “wherein the front is hingedly moveable such that when the front is in a first position the battery backup unit container is in the closed condition and when in a second position, the battery backup unit container is in the open condition.”
Regarding claim 18, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 11, as set forth above. Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “the rear being hingedly moveable from a first position to a second position.”
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skjetne (GB 2561208 A) in view of Shao et al. (US 20210249639 A1), Hayashi (US 20100112424 A1), and Subramanian et al. (US 20150340671 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Conrardy et al. (US 20070178369 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 1, as set forth above. Skjetne further discloses that the container is intended to be suitable for transporting electrical energy storage devices, i.e., batteries (pg. 1, para. 1). Skjetne fails to disclose wherein the container is provided with skids for transport on a forked lifting device.
Conrardy teaches a battery cabinet (10) that has a number of tiers for storing batteries (12, Fig. 2, [0021]). Conrardy further teaches wherein the cabinet rack has a base (16) with a skid structure having box beams (30) such that a fork lift or the like may raise the battery cabinet.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Skjetne such that the base is provided with beam members, as taught by Conrardy, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a means for forklifts to raise the container with ease. It is obvious to use a known technique, i.e., mounting beam members on the bottom of an apparatus, to improve similar devices, i.e., battery mounting structures, in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitation “further comprising one or more skids mounted to the base, the skids being structured and arranged to permit the container to be raised with a forked lifting device” wherein the beam members are skids.
Regarding claim 16, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container according to claim 11, as set forth above. Skjetne further discloses that the container is intended to be suitable for transporting electrical energy storage devices, i.e., batteries (pg. 1, para. 1). Skjetne fails to disclose wherein the container is provided with skids for transport on a forked lifting device.
Conrardy teaches a battery cabinet (10) that has a number of tiers for storing batteries (12, Fig. 2, [0021]). Conrardy further teaches wherein the cabinet rack has a base (16) with a skid structure having box beams (30) such that a fork lift or the like may raise the battery cabinet.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Skjetne such that the base is provided with beam members, as taught by Conrardy, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a means for forklifts to raise the container with ease. It is obvious to use a known technique, i.e., mounting beam members on the bottom of an apparatus, to improve similar devices, i.e., battery mounting structures, in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitation “further comprising one or more skids mounted to the base, the skids being structured and arranged to permit the container to be raised with a forked lifting device.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skjetne (GB 2561208 A) in view of Shao et al. (US 20210249639 A1), Hayashi (US 20100112424 A1), and Subramanian et al. (US 20150340671 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of King et al. (US 20180375179 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Skjetne renders obvious the claim limitations of the battery backup unit storage container of claim 1, as set forth above. Skjetne further teaches that the internal rigid frame may be mounted with polyethylene foam plates to have suitable insulating and shock absorbing properties (pg. 6, L1). Furthermore, the frame itself may be a polymer plastic, such as polyethylene). Skjetne fails to disclose whether the polyethylene frame is formed of high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
King discloses a battery pack 24 comprising a number of battery cells (56, Fig. 2, [0046]). The battery cells are grouped within support structures to form the battery assembly (25, [0047]). In one embodiment, King teaches that support beams (70) may include a harder material, HDPE, overmolded with a softer material, urethane foam ([0060]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select HDPE as the polyethylene plastic in the frame of Modified Skjetne with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a suitable material for mounting foam plates, as taught by King.
Modified Skjetne accordingly renders obvious the claim limitation “the shuttle assembly being formed from HDPE.”
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skjetne (GB 2561208 A) in view of Shao et al. (US 20210249639 A1), Hayashi (US 20100112424 A1), and Subramanian et al. (US 20150340671 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of March (US 20170025653 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Skjetne meets the claim limitations of the battery backup unit container according to claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Skjetne does not provide details regarding stacking additional battery backup unit containers on top of or on the bottom of the disclosed container.
March teaches a battery pack (424) including a first battery assembly (425-1) and a second battery assembly (425-2, [0067]). March further teaches wherein the battery assemblies are stacked vertically with assembly (425-2) stacked on top of assembly (425-1) with one or more spacers (495) disposed in between to space them from one another (Fig. 10). Additionally, engagement features may be installed on the side walls, array plates (460), of the assemblies to secure the structure ([0069]). March teaches that this configuration provides a compact and space efficient packaging design ([0071]).
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Skjetne such that it was stacked on top of another battery backup unit storage container via spacers and engagement features, as taught by March, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a compact and space efficient packing design. It is obvious to use a known technique, i.e., stacking battery assemblies via spacers and engagement features, to improve similar devices, i.e., the battery assembly of March and the battery backup unit storage container of Modified Skjetne, in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitation “the battery backup unit container being a first battery backup unit storage container, the first battery backup unit storage container being stackable such that the first battery backup unit storage container can be stacked on top of or beneath a second battery backup storage container.”
Regarding claim 20, Modified Skjetne meets the claim limitations of the battery backup unit container according to claim 11 as set forth above. Modified Skjetne does not provide details regarding stacking additional battery backup unit containers on top of or on the bottom of the disclosed container.
March teaches a battery pack (424) including a first battery assembly (425-1) and a second battery assembly (425-2, [0067]). March further teaches wherein the battery assemblies are stacked vertically with assembly (425-2) stacked on top of assembly (425-1) with one or more spacers (495) disposed in between to space them from one another (Fig. 10). Additionally, engagement features may be installed on the side walls, array plates (460), of the assemblies to secure the structure ([0069]). March teaches that this configuration provides a compact and space efficient packaging design ([0071]).
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Modified Skjetne such that it was stacked on top of another battery backup unit storage container via spacers and engagement features, as taught by March, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a compact and space efficient packing design. It is obvious to use a known technique, i.e., stacking battery assemblies via spacers and engagement features, to improve similar devices, i.e., the battery assembly of March and the battery backup unit storage container of Modified Skjetne, in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Modified Skjetne therefore renders obvious the claim limitation “the battery backup unit storage container being a first battery backup unit storage container, the first battery backup unit storage container being stackable such that the first battery backup unit storage container can be stacked on top of or beneath a second battery backup storage container.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached on (571) 270-7871. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728