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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 12/10/2025 have been acknowledged. Claims 16-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 16 recites “with each first cross-member and each second cross-member affixed to both the first wall member and the second wall member” in lines 15-17 and “with each of the plurality of third wall cross-members affixed to both the third wall member and the fourth wall member” in lines 22-24. However, the specification does not explicitly describe the cross-members affixed to the respective wall members or a method for the affixing. The drawings show that the cross-members touch the respective pairs of wall members, but it is not definite that the parts are affixed together rather than, for example, pushed to contact each other despite being separate components. The limitations in question constitute new matter. Claims 17-21 are rejected for depending on claim 16 with the new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0047624 to Gunna et al. in view of CN 205609590 to Zhang (machine translation provided for citation) and US 2019/0165437 to Kellner et al.
Regarding claim 16, Gunna et al. teaches an advanced battery module or battery pack 24 for a vehicle (Fig. 1; [0034-36]; [0041]), comprising:
a housing or enclosure 62 having a first wall and third wall, e.g. end walls 74, second wall and fourth wall being sidewalls 68, 70 (Figs. 2 and 6-8; [0048]; [0049]; [0062-64]), the first wall being perpendicular to the second wall and fourth wall, and the third wall being parallel to the first wall,
a first cell compartment and a second cell compartment adjacent to the first cell compartment, the first wall coupled to the first cell compartment and the second cell compartment, and
a plurality of cells provided in the first cell compartment and the second cell compartment (Fig. 2; [0044]; [0045]).
Gunna et al. does not expressly teach the structure of the first wall and third wall (end walls 74) as claimed.
Zhang also relates to a housing for a battery module and teaches that the housing includes an end plate 2 as a first wall and an end plate 3 as a third wall, wherein the first wall being a double wall, consisting of a plurality of cross-members positioned along a width between a first wall member, e.g. portion of the end plate 2 on one side of the cross-members, and a second wall member parallel to the first wall member, e.g. portion of the end plate 2 on the other side of the cross-members; wherein the plurality of first wall cross-members is defined by each of the plurality of first wall cross-members having non-right angles relative to the first wall member, with each first cross-member of the plurality of first wall cross-members being substantially perpendicular to each second cross-member of the plurality of first wall cross-members adjacent to the first cross-member, with a structure corresponding to the claimed structure where each first cross-member and each second cross-member affixed to both the first wall member and the second wall member as seen in Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 7; and wherein the third wall, being a double wall, comprises: a plurality of third wall cross-members extending between a third wall member including a portion of the end plate 3 on one side and a fourth wall member parallel to the third wall member including a portion of the end plate 3 on the other side, a structure of which corresponding to the claimed one with each of the plurality of third wall cross-members affixed to both the third wall member and the fourth wall member; wherein the plurality of third wall cross-members is defined at least in part by a series of non-right angles relative to the third wall member as seen in Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 7 ([0032]; [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the end wall 74 of Gunna et al. as claimed, because Zhang demonstrates a known structure for end plates as parts of a battery module housing and the skilled artisan would have obtained expected results applying a known element to a similar product. Once the end plates are incorporated into the housing of Gunna et al., only one cell of the plurality of cells provided in the first cell compartment and only one cell of the plurality of cells provided in the second cell compartment would have been adjacent to the first wall, with each of the first wall member, the second wall member and the plurality of first wall cross-members being swelling constraints on a battery cell swelling as the claimed structure is met (Gunna Fig. 2; [0016]).
Finally, Gunna et al. teaches that the first wall and third wall (end walls 74), as part of the enclosure 62, is made of aluminum or other materials ([0049]), but does not expressly teach that they comprise a plastic.
Kellner et al. also relates to an advanced battery module for a vehicle (Fig. 1; [0002]) and teaches a housing made of light metal material such as aluminum or plastic ([0028]; [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used plastic for at least the first wall and third wall of Gunna et al., as Kellner et al. teaches that the plastic material affords considerable advantages in respect of the weight and the housing function and also the cooling action ([0029]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using a known material to make a known product.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches that the plurality of cross-members comprises the first cross-member and the second cross-member, the first cross-member intersecting the first wall at a different angle than the second cross-member (Zhang Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 7; Gunna Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Gunna et al. teaches that the plurality of cells is prismatic (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, once incorporated, a long edge of each cell in the plurality of cells is oriented parallel to the first wall or end wall 74 (Gunna Fig. 2; [0048]; [0049]).
Regarding claim 20, the plurality of first wall cross-members is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the first wall member and the plurality of third wall cross-members is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the third wall member (Zhang Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 7).
Regarding claim 21, the long edge is neither perpendicular nor parallel to the plurality of the first wall cross-members and the plurality of third wall cross-members (Zhang Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant amended claim 16 to require that each first cross-members and each second cross-member affixed to both the first wall member and the second wall member and each of the plurality of third wall cross-members affixed to both the third wall member and the fourth wall member. In response, the Examiner has pointed out that these limitations constitute new matter and applied a new ground of rejection based on Gunna, Zhang, and Kellner, where, particularly, Zhang demonstrates the structure of end plates 2, 3 corresponding to the claimed the first wall and third wall including the newly added features (see rejection above).
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 HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725