Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received 08/19/2025:
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-18 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claims 9-10 have been canceled. Claims 14-18 are new.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “104” has been used to designate side panels, side parts, side portions, and side members. . The PGPUB recites that “The support regions 112 are configured here in a ladder-like manner, wherein two outer support regions 112 extending along opposite longitudinal edges of the side portion 104 represent uprights of a ladder and support regions 112 extending transversely between the outer support regions 112 represent rungs of the ladder”, “side portions arranged on opposite sides of the battery module are connected to each other by a web loaded in tension” (P50) wherein side portions represent uprights of a ladder (P46), “The web 300 is connected to the respective side part 104 in the region of the support region 112 extending along the respective side part 104” (P50), “The side parts can additionally be connected at least once along their length by an elastic web or other mechanical connection to reduce outward deflection of the support areas”(P58). However, “side portions” and “side members” are also used interchangeably. It is unclear if “the side portions” are meant to refer to “the side members” or a part of the side members.
According to the PGPUB, Figure 3 shows “...the battery module 100 is substantially similar to the battery modules shown previously. In addition, here the side portions 104 arranged on opposite sides of the battery module 100 are connected to each other by a web 300 loaded in tension” (P50) and “…Here, the web 300 is arranged on a bottom side of the battery module 100…” (P51). Based on the placement of 112 and 104, it is not clear if 104 is meant to be in reference to a single part of the member, or the entirety.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Side member, side part, and side portion are all referenced as 104 and appear to be used interchangeably. However, the disclosure and claim 1 seem to teach that “side member 104” is the entirety of the member, making up the entire side surface of the module and comprising the other components. On the other hand, “side portion 104” is taught as the component of the “side member 104” extending in the longitudinal plane direction, or as the stiles forming the ladder type structure with support regions 112 as rungs (P46) and in other paragraphs, the “side portion 104” is the same as the “side member 104” formed on opposing sides of the module and comprising the support regions as a part of its structure (P48; Fig. 2). Furthermore, the disclosure teaches “side part 104”, and “side panel” throughout the disclosure. Side panel/part/member are often used together within the same paragraph, bringing further confusion. Examiner also notes the abstract using the term “side parts”.
The terms “elastic region 106”, “elastic area 106”, and “elastic portion”, for example paragraphs 41-44 of the PGPUB (there are many additional recitations), used within the same paragraph, but appear to refer to the same part. I.e., “The elastic region 106 has a spring characteristic. A pressing force 110 of the elastic area 106 depends on the spring characteristic and a deformation of the elastic area 106… The pressing force 110 is variable and becomes greater when the thickness of the cells increases, as the deformation of the elastic region 106 increases” (P43).
The “distribution plate 202” and “the manifold plate 202” are used interchangeably within the PGPUB (P24-26); however, claims 6-8 claim them as separate components. I.e., “The distributor plates 202 may also comprise a compressible material 204. In particular, the compressible material 204 may directly contact the outer cells 200 and compensate for flatness tolerances of the cells 200 and the manifold plates 202. The compressible material 204 may also be compressed or relieved by the change in thickness of the cells 200” (P49) whereas the claims recite “…at least one distribution plate is arranged between an elastic region and an outermost cell” (claim 6) and “… a manifold plate comprises a metal sheet” (claim 7 dependent on claim 6) or “…a manifold plate comprises a layer…” (claim 8 dependent on claim 6).
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 1-3, 5-8, and 11-18 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 1 recites “…at least one elastic region deep-drawn and embossed”. However, the disclosure teaches the elastic region is deep-drawn OR embossed (P20.44; PGPUB). Deep drawing and embossing are different formation processes of sheet metal and one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the disclosure teaching them alternatively, would not know how to apply both processes together in making the elastic region.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 11-18 are rejected for depending on rejected independent claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-8, and 11-18 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.
Claim 2 recites “an elastic portion”. However, based on the instant disclosure one of ordinary skill in the art would only interpret “an elastic portion” as “the at least one elastic region”. If “an elastic portion” is different than “the at least one elastic region”, one would not know how this is meant to differ from the elastic region.
Claim 2 recites “…a main extension plane of a side member”. Examiner believes this should be corrected to recite “…the main extension plane of the at least one side member”.
Claims 3, 5, 11-12 recites “…the side member…” or “side member”. Examiner believes this should be corrected to recite “…the at least one side member…”.
Claim 5 recites “…a support region” which should be corrected to be drawn to the previous “plurality of support regions”, i.e., one of the plurality of support regions.
Claims 5 and 6 recite “…an elastic region” which should be corrected to recite “…the at least one elastic region…”. Claim 6 recites “an outermost cell”.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the placement of “a manifold plate” relative to the structure of the battery module. The PGPUB provides no structural connection of “a manifold plate”; however, it appears both “a distributor plate 202” and “a manifold plate 202” (P49) are the same thing.
Claims 7-8 recites the limitation "a manifold plate” and are dependent on claim 6. The PGPUB recites both “a distributor plate 202” and “a manifold plate 202” (P49) and thus it appears they are the same. Therefore, it seems the disclosure and claims 7-8 should be corrected to recite “the distribution plate”. The disclosure does not provide support for a manifold plate that is different that a distribution plate.
Claim 11 recites " the side member comprises flexurally rigid support portions arranged along at least two opposing edges". Claim 1 recites “…at least one side member comprises…a plurality of support regions disposed substantially in a main extension plane of the at least one side member and configured as flexurally rigid portions that provide reinforcement of the at least one side member…”. It is unclear what component the “at least two opposing edges” are in reference to. Thus, it is believed that “the side member” should be “the at least one side member” and “flexurally rigid support portions” are “the plurality of support regions”, to claim that: the [flexurally rigid] plurality of support regions are arranged along at least two opposing edges of the at least one side member.
Claim 12 recites “the subregions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The PGPUB teaches “the elastic region 106 is divided into a plurality of subregions 116. A support region 112 is disposed between each two subregions 116” (P46). Such structure and antecedent basis is necessary.
Claim 12 recites “a flexurally rigid support region”, which should be corrected to recite “the plurality of support regions”.
Claim 13 recites “…the side portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The PGPUB recites that “side portions arranged on opposite sides of the battery module are connected to each other by a web loaded in tension” (P50) wherein side portions represent uprights of a ladder (P46), “The web 300 is connected to the respective side part 104 in the region of the support region 112 extending along the respective side part 104” (P50)., “The side parts can additionally be connected at least once along their length by an elastic web or other mechanical connection to reduce outward deflection of the support areas”(P58). However, “side portions” and “side members” are also used interchangeably. It is unclear if “the side portions” are meant to refer to “the side members” or a part of the side members.
Claim 18 recites “the support regions extend continuously between the plurality of elastic regions”. It is unclear how this limits the claim. Furthermore, the support regions do not extend continuously, but are interposed periodically, in an alternating pattern with the plurality of elastic regions.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent claim 1 recites “…the elastic region in an installed and preloaded state, exerts a pressing force perpendicular to the electrode surface on the cells, the pressing force corresponding to a surface pressure between 1 kPa and 10 kPa”.
Dependent claim 15 recites “…the elastic region is preloaded during assembly of the side members into the battery module so as to exert, in the installed state, the pressing force corresponding to a surface pressure between 1 kPa and 10 kPa”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 5, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20190334138) in view of Jeong et al. (US 20210265685).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a battery module for a traction battery of an electric vehicle (P3.6), the battery module comprising:
two side members, or end plates 202 arranged on opposite sides of the battery module and oriented substantially parallel to an electrode surface of cells 100 of the battery module (P61), and wherein at least one side member 202 comprises:
a plurality of support regions, or creases or protrusions disposed substantially in a main extension plane of the at least one side member and configured as flexurally rigid portions that provide reinforcement of the at least one side member (P71; Fig. 1), and at least one elastic region 204 embossed so as to be offset from the main extension plane and elastically deformable in a direction perpendicular to the electrode surface (P51.64.71; Fig. 1.5.6(b)).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Though Song does not expressly disclose the elastic region in an installed and preloaded state, exerts a pressing force perpendicular to the electrode surface on the cells, the pressing force corresponding to a surface pressure between 1 kPa and 10 kPa, Song teaches all of the claimed structural features, and is fully capable of supplying the claimed pressure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the elastic region is capable of exerting a pressing force as claimed. Furthermore, a case of prima facie obviousness exists 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. Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. MPEP2114&2173.05(g)
Furthermore, Jeong, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery module accounting for the inherent swelling of cells with an elastic movement (P17).
A pressing force is exerted perpendicular to the electrode surface of the cells by a side member in an installed and preloaded state to absorb an assembling tolerance and a swelling in a simple and efficient, protecting the cells (P52.56.79).
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 elastic region in an installed and preloaded state, exert a pressing force perpendicular to the electrode surface on the cells, to further protect the module, as taught by Jeong, and to form the depressed shape of Song (P64; Fig. 3), and arrive at a pressure between 1 kPa and 10 kPa based on desired compression and design parameters of the module. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention”. MPEP 2145 II
Regarding claim 2, Song teaches the elastic region is offset inwardly from a main extension plane of the side member 202 (Fig. 1.5.6(b)).
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches the side member comprises a metal material, or is created via embossing (P71), a known metal working process. Furthermore, Jeong, in a similar field of endeavor teaches aluminum is a material used for battery module side frames that is capable of bending deformation for absorbing assembly tolerance and swelling (P53).
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 side member comprise a metal material, to better absorb swelling. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 5, Song teaches the side member comprises at least one recess, or the sloping side portion of the support region (shown in annotated Fig. 1, above) arranged between an elastic region and the support region (Fig. 1.5).
Regarding claim 11, Song teaches the side member comprises flexurally rigid support portions 203 arranged along at least two opposing edges (P63; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 12, Song teaches the side member comprises a flexurally rigid support region arranged between each of the subregions, as shown in annotated Fig. 1, above wherein subregions are divided based on elastic regions (P65.71; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 13, Song teaches side members 202 are interconnected by at least one web, or side plates 201 (P62; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Song teaches a maximum outward deformation of the elastic region 204 does not exceed the main extension plane of the at least one side member 202 (P65.78-79; Fig. 6B)
Regarding claim 15, Song in view of Jeong teach the elastic region is preloaded during assembly of the side members into the battery module so as to exert, in the installed state, the pressing force corresponding to a surface pressure between 1 kPa and 10 kPa, as described in the rejection of claim 1, above. A case of prima facie obviousness exists 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. Additionally, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. MPEP2114&2173.05(g)
Regarding claim 16, Song teaches the plurality of support regions, such as protrusion 203 extend along at least two opposing edges of the at least one side member 202 (P63; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 17, Song teaches the at least one elastic region comprises a plurality of elastic regions and wherein the support regions are disposed between them (Fig. 1 – annotated in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, Song teaches the support regions, as creases between 204 extend continuously between the plurality of elastic regions along a longitudinal direction of the side member (P71; Fig. 4).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Jeong as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20210344057).
Regarding claim 6, Song is silent in teaching at least one distribution plate arranged between the elastic region and outermost cell; however, Seo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a module accounting for swelling of cells (P5).
Seo teaches including a distribution plate 40/30 arranged between a side member 24 and outermost cell to form close adhesion and buffer expansion capacity of the cells improving safety (P31.40-44; Fig. 3-4).
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 at least one distribution plate arranged between the side member including the elastic region, and the outermost cell of Song to improve capacity, as taught by Seo. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 7, modified Song in view of Seo teaches a manifold plate comprises a metal sheet (P48).
Regarding claim 8, modified Song in view of Seo teaches a manifold plate comprises a layer of a compressible material, or leaf spring or foam 40 having a higher compressibility than a material of a supporting structure, pressing plate 30 of the manifold plate. (P42.54; Fig. 5).
Conclusion
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