Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received 12/04/2025:
Claims 1-22 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 18 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 11-16 remain withdrawn without traverse. Claims 21-22 are new.
Claim Objection
Claims 17, 19, 21-22 are objected to. Claim 17 recites “…the cell carrier does not include walls along the remaining respective edges of the rectangular base…”. However, the disclosure recites “… cell carrier 501 includes two walls arranged at opposite edges, corresponding to dimension 504. Further, as illustrated, cell carrier 501 does not include walls corresponding to dimension 505, and accordingly, a shear wall may be affixed along the side of assembly 500 corresponding to dimension 505 (e.g., or two shear walls, one each at each of the two open lateral sides)” (P40), wherein the “present disclosure is directed towards a structural reinforcement of a battery module carrier, and more particularly, towards a battery module carrier having a plurality of multipart shear walls” (P1). Therefore, for the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation of “…the cell carrier does not include walls along the remaining respective edges of the rectangular base…” will be interpreted as the cell carrier does not include walls formed integrally with the base along the remaining respective edges of the rectangular base and additional walls, such as shear walls may present be along the remaining respective edges of the rectangular base. Claims 19 and 21 -22 are objected to for depending on claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…one or more through features configured for accessing terminals of the plurality of battery cells…” in claims 1, 9, and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The disclosure teaches “In some embodiments, the cell carrier may include one or more recess features (e.g., through features) for accessing terminals of battery cells…” (P48; PGPUB US20220407162A1). However, no examples are shown or described. Therefore, while it is well known that terminals of cells must be electrically accessible to make a battery system useable, using the broadest interpretation, a through feature configured for accessing terminals of the plurality of battery cells will be interpreted as any means by which terminals can be accessed/seen. For example, if the carrier is configured to have the cell terminals exposed (i.e. in an upright position) where the terminals are visible, a “through feature” can be the opening or base of the carrier.
Claims 5 and 22 recite “integrated hinges”. The disclosure teaches the hinges are formed to enable folding of the walls, or that the folded cell carrier may include interfaces corresponding to the hinges that arise from folding. In some embodiments the hinges are made of the same material as the entirety of the carrier, and are simply made of reduced thickness, which allows the carrier wall to be flexed to form side walls (P48-49 of PGPUB)
Therefore, using the broadest reasonable interpretation “integrated hinges” are interpreted as points or centers of rotation of components, or an axis/line along which bending/unbending occurs, such as a perpendicular interface between angled/folded surfaces. Hinges may arise, or be present, from the folding of the carrier.
The claims recite “a shear wall” with little to no structure differentiating the “shear wall” from any other wall. Therefore, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “shear wall” will be interpreted as any wall providing lateral strength, or strength against forces in a parallel plane of the wall.
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.
Claims 17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ju et al. (US 20190260099)
Regarding claim 17, Ju teaches a battery system configured to provide electric power to a vehicle (P2.13), the battery system comprising: a plurality of battery cells 100/110 having an end side and a set of lateral sides, or terminal sides (P77; Fig. 2-3);
a cell carrier 200 formed as a single component via integrated sliding portion (P99-100.152; Fig. 2), wherein the cell carrier comprises: a base 200 that at least partially encases the plurality of battery cells at the end side, two walls 300/301/302 arranged along opposite lateral sides of the set of lateral sides, wherein the two walls comprise a plurality of recesses (Fig. 5) on an inner surface and wherein each recess accommodates a respective one of the plurality of battery cells via the lead (P126; Fig. 5); and the cell carrier does not include walls along the remaining respective edges of the rectangular base (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 19, Ju teaches the plurality of battery cells have a second end opposite the end side the battery system further comprising a cooling plate 500 affixed to the second side (P138; Fig. 14)
Regarding claim 21, Ju teaches the cell carrier comprises one or more through feature H3 configured for accessing terminals of the plurality of cells (P133-134; Fig. 4-5)
Regarding claim 22, Ju teaches the cell carrier further comprises two integrated hinges, or sliding portions, wherein hinges is defined as a moveable joint of mechanism to open or close an object, a joint that moves forward and backward, the integrated hinges arranged between a respective wall of the two walls and a respective edge of the base (P152-170; Fig. 8-23)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2021/0126318) in view of Masuda (JP 2001307784 A)
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a battery system configured to provide electrical power to a vehicle (P3-4) the battery system comprising:
a cell carrier, or battery case, configured to at least partially encase a plurality of battery cells (P71), wherein the cell carrier comprises:
one or more walls, or side plates 22, arranged along respective edges of a rectangular base, or bottom plate 1 (P71-73; Fig. 1-2).
Jiang teaches the cell carrier is configured to hold the cells such that the terminals of the plurality of battery cells are exposed in the cavity of the case (P71-73.92-93; Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the through feature, or enclosure opening of the base between side arms, formed in such a manner that it is easy to operate, can be used, or “configured to” access the terminals of the plurality of cells. MPEP 2112
Jiang is silent in teaching each of the one or more walls comprises a plurality of recesses on an inner surface and wherein each recess accommodates a respective one of the plurality of battery cells; however, Masuda also teaches a battery system with a cell carrier for a vehicle (P20-23; Fig. 1).
The cell carrier is formed with a plurality of walls, each wall comprising a plurality of recesses on an inner surface, each recess accommodates a respective battery cell, paired with thermal grease, to allow close arrangement of cells, reduced mounting space, better thermal dissipation, and protection of the system. The cells can be provided in any shape (i.e., rectangular or cylindrical), and in any number/configuration (P20-28; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have each of the one or more walls of Jiang comprise a plurality of recesses on an inner surface accommodating a respective one of the plurality of battery cells, with a thermal grease coating, as taught by Masuda, to reduce mounting space and increase heat dissipation. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 2, modified Jiang teaches the rectangular base 1 comprises a first pair of lateral sides opposite each other that are a first length; and a second pair of lateral sides opposite each other that are a second length that is longer than the first length, or that the rectangular base, or bottom plate 1 is indeed rectangular with four sides (P73; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jiang teaches one or more wall reinforcements, or bended arms 222 affixed along the second pair of lateral sides (P87; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jiang teaches the one or more wall reinforcements are further comprised of structural tabs, or the bended arms are structural tabs projecting from the bottom plate (P87; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jiang teaches the cell carrier comprises one or more integrated hinges, formed via bending of the side plates 22 relative to the bottom plate 1 and each integrated hinge arranged between a respective wall of the one or more walls and the respective edges of the rectangular base (P71-76; Fig. 1-2). While Jiang does not explicitly recite an integrated hinge, the side arms are hinged, or bent relative to the bottom plate, and thus the hinges arise from the folding of the carrier, similarly to that in the disclosure. Therefore, the interface between the bottom and side walls of the disclosure and Jiang possess the same ability, to hinge and fold to create a cell carrier.
The cell carrier is configured to achieve: a first state wherein the one or more walls and the rectangular base lie in a plane as a flat structure and wherein the one or more integrated hinges are unflexed, or where prior to the walls being hinged perpendicular to the base, they are circumferentially spaced extensions a (P71-74; Fig. 1); and a second state wherein the one or more walls are arranged perpendicular, or circumferentially spaced extensions a are bent perpendicularly to form side plates 22 to the rectangular base 1 and wherein the one or more integrated hinges are flexed, arising from bending (P71-74; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jiang teaches the one or more walls comprises: a first wall 22 arranged at a first edge of the rectangular base; a second wall 22 arranged at a second edge of the rectangular base opposite to the first edge, and wherein the battery system further comprises: a shear wall, or end plate 21 providing structural support against parallel forces, arranged along a side of an assembly, or cell assembly corresponding to a third edge of the rectangular base, wherein the shear wall, or end plate 21 is affixed to the cell carrier, and wherein the shear wall 21 comprises one or more mounting features, or connecting portions 211 (P83-86; Fig. 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Masuda as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott (US 5293951 A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jiang is silent in teaching an adhesive arranged along each of the one or more integrated hinges, or folds, to maintain an orientation of each respective wall 22 of the one or more walls and the rectangular base 1; however, Scott, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery system for a vehicle with a carrier case (Col. 2 [63-66]).
Scott teaches including an adhesive, or stabilizer 26, located at interior corners of a base and side walls extending around all lower portions to hold the corners snugly in place protecting upset. Furthermore, the adhesive, or stabilizer grasps the base and sides to form a tighter containment for the batteries, to prevent them from moving around or directly hitting against the side walls (Col. 4 [31-58]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include an adhesive arranged along each of the one or more integrated hinges to maintain an orientation of each respective wall 22 of the one or more walls and the rectangular base 1, as taught by Scott.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Masuda as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon (US 2011/0305935).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jiang teaches the plurality of battery cells each comprise a first face affixed to the rectangular base (P93; Fig. 8).
Modified Jiang is silent in teaching a cooling plate having a first side and a second side opposite the first side wherein the second face of the plurality of battery cells is affixed to the first side of the cooling plate; however, Yoon, in a similar field of endeavor teaches a battery system housing.
Yoon teaches including a cooling plate having a first side and a second side opposite the first side wherein a plurality of battery cells is affixed to the first side of the cooling plate to efficiently remove large amounts of heat from battery modules to prevent performance from decreasing (P48-49.52.57-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to include the cooling plate of Yoon, wherein the second end of the plurality of battery cells in the battery system of modified Jiang is affixed to the cooling plate to efficiently remove large amounts of heat, preventing decrease in performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143 C
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Masuda and Yoon as applied to at least claim 8 above, and further in view of Glass (US 2018/0331401).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jiang in view of Yoon teaches a closed system cooling plate above the plurality of battery cells within a cell carrier.
Modified Jiang in view of Yoon is silent in teaching a second assembly arranged along the second side of the cooling plate, the second assembly comprising: a second plurality of battery cells; and a second cell carrier that encases the second plurality of battery cells, wherein the cell carrier comprises: a second rectangular base; one or more second walls arranged along respective edges of the second rectangular base; and a plurality of second integrated hinges, each second integrated hinge arranged between a respective second wall of the one or more second walls and the second rectangular base at the respective edge of the second rectangular base; however, Glass, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery systems, teaches a stacked battery system (Fig. 6).
Glass teaches arranging a second assembly along a second side of the cooling plate within a cell carrier to actively cool a plurality of modules, allowing multi-sided cooling (P27-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to modify Jiang in view of Yoon, to include a second assembly along the second side of the cooling plate to allow additional cooling of a second assembly while reducing necessary parts, as taught by Glass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to have the second assembly comprise the same setup as the first assembly of modified Jiang, with second plurality of battery cells; and a second cell carrier that encases the second plurality of battery cells, wherein the cell carrier comprises: a second rectangular base; one or more second walls arranged along respective edges of the second rectangular base; and through features, or an opening exposing cell terminals, for accessing terminals of the plurality of battery cells to make a functional battery system and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B
The results are not unexpected because merely stacking another assembly above a first does not change the function of the module, the cooling plates, or the carrier, and provides the exact functionality taught by modified Jiang – to provide a battery module within a carrier with effective heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 10, modified Jiang teaches a shear wall, or end plate 21 providing structural support against parallel forces via connecting member supports 3 (P84-86) arranged along a side of an assembly corresponding to an edge of the rectangular base 1, the shear wall connected to the cell carrier (Fig. 5-8), and wherein the shear wall 21 comprises one or more mounting features, or connecting portions 211 (P83-86; Fig. 5)
Modified Jiang is silent in teaching the shear wall is affixed to both the cell carrier and to the second cell carrier; however, a skilled artisan could easily combine the connecting members/supports that pass through connecting holes, thus affixing the shear wall to both the cell carrier and to the second cell carrier, because the structure prevents the deformation in the lateral direction, and it would not produce new of different function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the shear wall is affixed to both the cell carrier and to the second cell carrier by combining a support structure aligning the walls and providing support parallel to the axis.
The convenience of putting the support members together along shear walls, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a ‘new’ or ‘different function’” and that to those skilled in the art the use of the old elements in combination would have been obvious. Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674. MPEP 2143 A
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Upon further consideration and changed amendments regarding language of the “through features” in light of the “configured to language”, examiner notes the applicant must indicate in the specification what structure constitutes the means,” because if the specification is not clear in this regard, “the patentee has not paid the price [demanded by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)] but is rather attempting to claim in functional terms unbounded by any reference to structure in the specification.” Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. No corresponding specific feature could be found within the disclosure and as best interpreted, a cavity of the carrier itself reads on the limitation.
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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752