DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s submission of a corrected drawing.
Specification
The objection to the abstract of the disclosure is withdrawn. The objection was made in error. The present application is a 371 of a PCT application. Therefore, the abstract from the front page of the PCT publication is an acceptable format.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 2-15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claims.
Claim 23-42 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.
Claims 23 and 41 lack antecedent basis for the term “the module housing’s air compartment.”
Claim 29 is indefinite in view of the limitation “tap geometry.” It appears that this may be a typographical error and the language should be “tab geometry.” Furthermore, the specification appears to equate tab and flap geometry. For purposes of examination, tap geometry is considered to be equivalent to “flap geometry” with both terms being assigned their ordinary meanings of a projecting piece or strip that is connected at one end only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-17, 19-20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itoi et al. (US -2012/0135296) in view of Darch et al. (US 2013/0323558) is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claims.
Claim(s) 23-26, 28, 33-35, 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favaretto et al. (US 2019/0305395) in view of Itoi et al. (US 2012/0135296).
Favaretto et al. disclose a battery module having a plurality of battery units (19), a thermal exchange arrangement having a heat transfer network (26) and thermal exchange device (32), and a housing (72 and 28). The thermal exchange device (32) would necessarily allow for transfer of heat from ambient air within the battery housing. The heat transfer network (26) functions to conduct heat from the battery terminals and transfer it to the thermal exchange device (32). The reference is silent with regard to management circuitry.
Itoi et al. disclose a battery module having a plurality of battery units (10) having a plurality of inter-battery connectors (20 and 30) and a circuit board (60), which corresponds to the claimed “management circuitry.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a printed circuit board to the battery module taught by Favaretto et al. in order to provide operational control to the battery system.
With regard to claim 24 and 26, see Figures 11-14.
With regard to claim 25, see para [0072].
With regard to claim 28, see Figure 6.
With regard to claims 33-35 and 41, see paragraphs [0069-[0070] and Fig 10. While the reference discloses an embodiment wherein the individual batteries are connected in parallel, it also teaches that different configurations are possible. Thus, use of batteries in series would have been an obvious modification.
With regard to claim 38-40, see Figures 10-13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27, 29-32 and 42 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art to Favaretto et al. fails to disclose or suggest the structure of claim 27 wherein the management circuitry includes an array of fans to move air into and out of an air compartment to expedite thermal exchange.
Favaretto et al. also fails to teach or suggest the claimed structure of the inter-battery link (claim 29), the interrow connector structure with first, second and intermediate metal flap portions (claims 29-32) and an inter-battery link portion and interrow connector as set forth in claim 41.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-22 is acknowledged. However, newly presented claims 23-42 have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9am-3pm EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785