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 Arguments
Here, the applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 12 overcome the issues of indefiniteness raised in the previous office action of record. Accordingly, said rejections based on those issues of indefiniteness are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Here, the applicant asserts that the amended claims as now presented are not obvious over Asai in view of Ueno, as the combination does not provide for all aspects of the claims nor is there any rationale prompting a skilled artisan to modify the combination so as to derive the current invention. The applicant further asserts that specifically Asai in view of Ueno fails to provide for the aspect of claim 1 as to a bracket to fix a base plate of a vehicle, the binding bar including a fixing piece for fixing the bracket, the fixing pieces being extended in the stacking direction and integrated within the binding bar and protruding from a surface of the binding bar.
Here, the applicant asserts that both Asai and Ueno employ a two-piece connection, as seen in Asai’s figure 3, where battery stack 50 is directly fixed onto a base plate 6, where Asai lacks an intermediate bracket as a separate piece, and Ueno directly fixed a chassis 1 to a pair of pillars 14 shown in their figure 4, and that in contrast the exemplary power device according to amended claim 1 employs “a bracket to fix to a base plate of a vehicle”, where both Asai and Ueno lack said aspect as is now claimed.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that the primary reference Asai, connects the power supply device to the base plate at its lower end or bottom surface ash shown in figure 3, where a skilled artisan would ascertain that such a biased connection would tend to miss its balance of the center of gravity for the car driving battery field, in particular, wherein higher power is required and many battery cells are necessitated. The Applicant further asserts that in regards to the secondary reference Ueno, Ueno does not relate to a base plate of a vehicle and is not directed to a battery or power suppy device, but to a chassis for a plasma display panel, and that nor does Ueno relate to a base plate. Here, the Applicant asserts that a direct connection as taught by Asai and/or Ueno would require an entire design change depending on the corresponding base plate of the vehicle or power supply device itself, and that per MPEP section 2143.01.VI, the proposed modification cannot change the principle operation of a reference, and that if the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.
Here, the applicant asserts that in contrast, the claimed exemplary power supply device may achieve a stronger connection to the base plate of a vehicle resulting in higher reliability even under continuous vibration from a car driving engine or other external forces, and that a separate bracket achieves more flexible connection to different size or profile of power supply device or base plate of a vehicle by adjusting the design of the bracket itself, and that accordingly, the art of record does not recognize this nor any other rationale which could prompt a skilled artisan to modify Asai in view of Ueno so as to derive at least this missing aspect.
Here, the applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they have not been found to be persuasive. Here, in regards to the applicant’s first argument, where Asai or Ueno fail to provide “a bracket to fix to a base plate of a vehicle”, where the applicant asserts that both Asai and Ueno fail to provide such an aspect, 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).
Here, where Ueno discloses the use of brackets which comprise raised and bent flat members (Paragraph 0011, “As shown in FIG. 2A, the cut-and-raised portion 4 is formed by cutting a part 5 of the plate-shaped member 2 by pressing, raising it, raising it, and further bending the upper portion to provide a female screw 6”), where the raised and extended portion allows for both the mounting of an attached fixing member, as well as head dissipation (Paragraph 0011, “The cut-and-raised part 4 serves both as heat dissipation and as a mounting part. As shown in FIG. 2B, the cut-and-raised portion 7 is obtained by cutting a part 8 of the plate-shaped member 2 and raising it so as to radiate heat.”). As Asai discloses that a principal focus of their invention is the improvement of heat dissipation (Page 4, “since the thermal coupling between the prismatic battery cell 1and the cooling plate 7 can be reliably maintained, the cooling capacity is surely exhibited and the heat dissipation performance of the prismatic battery cell is improved.”) it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify the structure of Asai to make use of the brackets of Ueno, thereby allowing for improved heat dissipation. As the bracket of Ueno comprises a raised and folded member, this modification of the structure of Asai would therefore comprise a raising of the position of Asai’s fixing members upwards along Asai’s binding bar, so as to allow the fixing members of Asai to couple and attach to a heat-radiating bracket.
Additionally, where The applicant asserts that Ueno does not relate to a base plate of a vehicle, and is not directed to a battery or power supply device, Ueno is understood to be an analogous art as Ueno discloses a base plate comprising brackets 4 meant to attach to struts and electronic parts (Abstract, “The display device chassis 1 is formed by joining reinforcing members 3 to a planar member 2 and providing the planar member 2 with louvering parts 4 and 7.”; Abstract, “The mounting of struts, circuit parts, etc., is made possible by the louvering parts 4.”). Here, the scope of this feature of the invention is directed to the field of brackets meant to attach adjacent structural components and electronic parts, and it has not been established that there is a significantly differing basis that requires differing structure for the attachment of a battery and base plate as presented in the instant claim that would not be met by a bracket directed to connect to a structural component and an electronic component.
Additionally, where the applicant asserts that the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of the reference, this argument ahs been fully considered but has not been persuasive. Here, the applicant has not established why or how the field of a base plate of a vehicle is significantly different and distinguishable from a generic base plate. The applicant has asserted that the connection of Asai which connects the power supply device to the base plate at its lower end or bottom surface “would tend to miss its balance of the center of gravity for car driving battery field in particular, wherein higher power is required thus many battery cells are necessitated”. Here, it is unclear as to why this would cause the structure to “miss its balance of the center of gravity for car driving battery field in particular”, as it is unclear why the balance of gravity is specifically different in structure in regards to the car driving battery field. The center of gravity is considered regardless of the context in which a component is fixed to a base plate, and the fact that a car driving battery would require more battery cells does not change the underlying mechanics through which the center of gravity is considered and accounted for. Accordingly, it is considered that the relevant aspect of this invention is the connection of a component to a base plate via a bracket, with a vehicle’s base plate being considered to be equivalent to any other base plate in terms of the principle of operation, and that no specific information has been provided to establish a rationale where vehicular structure would require consideration which differs from any use of a bracket to fix a battery to a base plate.
Accordingly, as it is unclear based on the presented arguments as to why that a direct connection as taught by Asai and/or Ueno would require an entire design change depending on the corresponding base plate of the vehicle or the power supply itself, it is further unclear as to why the proposed modification would change the principle of operation of the reference. Based on the currently presented material and arguments, the combination of Asai and Ueno would not change the principle of operation of the reference, where the principle of operation is understood to be the connection of an upper component to a base plate via a bracket, as no persuasive rationale has been presented that would
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai, (JP 2012094456 A), in further view of Ueno (JP 2002006755 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Asai is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a power supply device (Abstract, “A power supply unit comprises”) comprising a battery stack including a plurality of prismatic battery cells stacked together in a stacking direction, that being the direction in which the batteries are stacked (Page 1, “The present invention relates to a power supply device including a battery stack in which a plurality of rectangular battery cells are stacked”). Additionally, Asai discloses structure which comprises a pair of end plates, each of the pair of the end plates being disposed at a corresponding one of ends of the battery stack (Page 2, “and end plates 73 connected to both ends of the lower case 71 and the upper case 72.”), as depicted in Asai’s figure 2, where two end plates 73 are respectively disposed a corresponding one end of the battery stack, where the ends are ends in a stacked direction of the battery stack.
Additionally, Asai discloses structure which comprises a binding bar 11 (Page 4, “The battery stack 50 in which the rectangular battery cells 1 and the separators 2 are alternately stacked is fastened by a bind bar 11 that is a fastening means”), depicted in Asai’s figure 3, coupled to the end plates 73, as depicted in Asai’s figure 2, where the bind bar 11 is depicted in contact with the end plate 73 (though the bind bar is not specifically numbered in that figure). Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein the binding bar is a metal sheet, again depicted in their figure 2 in regards to bind bar 11.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure comprising a bracket to fix to a base plate of a vehicle, and wherein the binding bar includes a fixing piece for fixing the bracket, the fixing piece being extended in the stacking direction and integrated with the binding bar and protruding from a surface of the binding bar, Asai fails to disclose said structure. Instead, Asai discloses structure wherein the binding bar includes a fixing piece which is integrated with the binding bar and protrudes from a surface of the binding bar, that fixes directly to a base plate, depicted in their figure 3 as fixing piece 31 (Page 4, “a fixing piece 31 for fixing on the mounting plate 6”), which affixes directly to the mounting plate 6, rather than to an intermediary bracket. However, Asai’s fixing piece does extend in the stacking direction, as it extends both outwards from the face of the battery in a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction and the stacking direction, being a rectangular shaped member that extends in both directions of its largest face, as seen in Asai’s figure 4.
Therefore, we look to Ueno, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a base plate comprising brackets 4 meant to attach to struts and electronic parts (Abstract, “The display device chassis 1 is formed by joining reinforcing members 3 to a planar member 2 and providing the planar member 2 with louvering parts 4 and 7.”; Abstract, “The mounting of struts, circuit parts, etc., is made possible by the louvering parts 4.”). Here, Ueno discloses the use of brackets which comprise raised and bent flat members (Paragraph 0011, “As shown in FIG. 2A, the cut-and-raised portion 4 is formed by cutting a part 5 of the plate-shaped member 2 by pressing, raising it, raising it, and further bending the upper portion to provide a female screw 6”), where the raised and extended portion allows for both the mounting of an attached fixing member, as well as head dissipation (Paragraph 0011, “The cut-and-raised part 4 serves both as heat dissipation and as a mounting part. As shown in FIG. 2B, the cut-and-raised portion 7 is obtained by cutting a part 8 of the plate-shaped member 2 and raising it so as to radiate heat.”). As Asai discloses that a principal focus of their invention is the improvement of heat dissipation (Page 4, “since the thermal coupling between the prismatic battery cell 1and the cooling plate 7 can be reliably maintained, the cooling capacity is surely exhibited and the heat dissipation performance of the prismatic battery cell is improved.”) it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify the structure of Asai to make use of the brackets of Ueno, thereby allowing for improved heat dissipation. As the bracket of Ueno comprises a raised and folded member, this modification of the structure of Asai would therefore comprise a raising of the position of Asai’s fixing members upwards along Asai’s binding bar, so as to allow the fixing members of Asai to couple and attach to a heat-radiating bracket.
Accordingly, where the binding bar defines a middle part, as depicted in Asai’s figure 4 as being a cut out region, said cut out region lower border would be where the fixing part is repositioned to allow for the use of the bracket, said middle part is defined in a longitudinal and width direction as a fixing piece region, thereby having a fixing piece. Additionally, the line of the cutout, which extends along the length of the binding bar is a straight part extending in the longitudinal direction along a part of an outer peripheral edge of the fixing piece region as a bending line. Additionally, the perimeter of the fixing piece, where the fixing piece’s borders are cut, being on an outer peripheral edge of the fixing piece region, is a cutting line which is cut. Additionally, where the bending line extends along the horizontal length of the binding bar, and then curves upwards along the height of the binding bar at a position towards an end of the binding bar, the bending line is therefore bent at the bending line. Additionally, as discussed above, where the fixing piece is positioned at the edge of the perimeter of the opening of the binding bar, as depicted in Asai’s figure 4, the biding bar therefore defines the fixing piece region as having the structure of an opening window where the fixing piece region protrudes outward as the fixing piece.
Additionally, where Ueno discloses and discusses the bracket member, Ueno’s bracket 4 as depicted in their figure 2 comprises an upper fixing part fixed to the fixing piece, a rising part provided with the fixing part at a distal end, and a bate plate connector provided at a lower end of the rising part. As discussed above, where the bracket is attached to a fixing piece so as to facilitate improved heat dispersion, the disclosure of Ueno therefore makes obvious structure wherein the fixing piece is fixed to the fixing part of the bracket, and the binding bar is accordingly fixed to the base plate via the bracket, and where the base plate is a base plate of a vehicle, the bracket is therefore a bracket to fix to a base plate of a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Asai further discloses structure which comprises a screw penetrating a fixing piece (Page 4, “Here, the mounting plate 6 is securely fixed by screwing using the screw holes 32 opened in the respective fixing pieces 31.”), and where Ueno makes obvious the attachment of the fixing piece to the bracket, this accordingly makes obvious structure wherein the screw fixes the fixing piece to a fixing part of the bracket.
Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein the fixing piece includes a slit extending in the longitudinal direction of the binding bar, here a screw hole 32 (Page 4, “the screw holes 32”), where a circular screw hole is considered a slit which extends uniformly in all directions, including the longitudinal direction of the binding bar. As discussed above, the combination of Asai and Ueno discloses structure wherein the set screw is inserted to fix the fixing piece and the fixing part of the bracket together.
Regarding Claim 3, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, Asai discloses structure where’re the binding bar includes the fixing piece including a plurality of slits each being the slit, as depicted in Asai’s figure 4, where multiple screw holes 32 and associated fixing pieces 31 are present, where the plurality of the slits are disposed apart from each other in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding Claim 4, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, Asai further discloses structure wherein the binding bar includes a plurality of the fixing pieces each being the fixing piece, as depicted in Asai’s figure 4, where the plurality of fixing pieces are each disposed apart from each other in the longitudinal direction, and each of the fixing pieces includes the screw hole 32 which is the slit.
Regarding Claim 5, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein each of a plurality of binding bars are disposed on one of both sides of the battery stack, as depicted in Asai’s figure 4, where the binding bars 11 are located on opposite sides of the battery stack, each of the binding bars including a plurality of fixing pieces, each of the binding bars each being the binding bar.
Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein the fixing piece of each of the plurality of binding bars each disposed on one of both sides of the battery stack is disposed at an asymmetric position from the fixing piece, where the associated fixing piece on the other binding bar is considered to be one of any of the fixing pieces other than the symmetrically positioned fixing piece, so as to be asymmetric.
Regarding Claim 6, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein the end plates are fixed to the base plate, through their attachment to the battery cell stack as depicted in Asai’s figure 2, where the battery cells stack is fixed to the base plate in Asai’s figure 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein the bending line is a straight line part of a lower edge of the fixing piece region, as depicted in Asai’s figure 4, where the bending line is a part which comprises a straight line, present along a lower edge of the region of the binding bar where the fixing piece is situated based on the combination of Asai and Ueno.
Regarding Claim 8, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein an arch-shaped member including an elongated bar is fixed on a surface of the each of the plurality of binding bars, each being the binding bar, as depicted in Asai’s figure 4, where the end portion of each binding bar comprises an arch shaped elongated bar 18, fixed onto a surface of the plurality of the binding bars (Page 3, “In this example, both ends of the frame-shaped metal plate are bent into a U-shape when viewed from the top to form a bent piece 18 and screwed to the end plate 4.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 8. Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein the arch member is coupled to each of the plurality of the fixing piece, through the attachment to the biding bar as a whole, where the binding bar is attached to each fixing piece.
Regarding Claim 10, Asai and Ueno make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein an intermediate plate is stacked in a middle of the battery stack, here the separator plate 2, which is positioned in between each battery of the battery stack (Page 3, “the battery stack 50 is configured by stacking a plurality of prismatic battery cells 1 via separators 2.”), which is depicted in Asai’s figure 5. Here, where the separator is placed the battery stack, it is placed in a middle of the stack, between the battery units which surround the middle, as well as in a middle height and width-wise. Additionally, as depicted in Asai’s figure 6, which depicts the battery stack being fixed to the base plate 6, the included separator is affixed to the base plate in being a part of the whole of the battery stack.
Regarding Claim 11, Asai further discloses structure comprising an electric vehicle equipped with the power supply device (Page 11, “The power supply device according to the present invention and a vehicle using the power supply device”) according to the invention of claim 1 made obvious by Asai and Ueno. Here, Asai discloses structure wherein the vehicle comprises the power supply device and a motor for travelling which receives electric power from the power supply device (Page 7, “The motor 93 is driven by power supplied from the battery systems91 and 92.”), as well as a vehicle body that is equipped with the power supply and motor, as depicted in Asai’s figure 17, (Page 7, “Next, a vehicle equipped with a power supply device using the above rectangular battery cells will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 17 shows an example of a hybrid vehicle HV that is equipped with a vehicle battery system and that runs on both the engine and the motor.”), which further depicts structure which comprises a wheel that is driven by the motor to cause the vehicle body to travel.
Regarding Claim 12, Asai further discloses structure comprising a power supply device according to the power supply device of Claim 1 made obvious by Asai and Ueno, where the power supply device comprises the power supply device, through their disclosure of a vehicle comprising the supply device, where the supply device stores power and supplies power to the vehicle (Page 7, “Next, a vehicle equipped with a power supply device using the above rectangular battery cells will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 17 shows an example of a hybrid vehicle HV that is equipped with a vehicle battery system and that runs on both the engine and the motor.”).
Additionally, Asai discloses structure wherein the hybrid vehicle is a power supply controller, controlling the usage of a motor and engine, while controlling the charge and discharge of the battery cells (Page 7, “The hybrid vehicle runs on both the motor 93and the engine 96 while charging and discharging the batteries of the battery systems 91 and 92.”), representing structure wherein the power supply controller enables a battery cell among the plurality of prismatic battery cells to be charged with electric power from an outside and controls charging to the battery cells.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Asai makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Asai discloses an intermediate pate stacked in the middle of the battery stack, shown in Asai’s figure 2, where separators 2 are interposed in between pluralities of battery cells 1 (Abstract, “A power supply unit comprises: end plates 4 located at end faces of a cell laminate 50 composed of a plurality of square battery cells 1 which are laminated one on top of another, with a separator 2 alternately interposed in between”). Additionally, the intermediate plate 2 is fixed to the binding bar 11 (Page 4 lines 17-18, “The battery stack 50 in which the rectangular battery cells 1 and the separators 2 are alternately stacked is fastened by a bind bar 11 that is a fastening means.”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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 5712721453. 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.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights