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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atsushi et al, US 20150140408 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Liu et al, CN 210167432 U (as cited in IDS and English translation provided for citation) and Park et al, EP 2849261 B1 (already on the record).
Regarding Claim 1, Atsushi teaches a power storage module (Atsushi, M; figure 1) including a plurality of power storage cells (Atsushi, 11; figure 1) that are stacked in a stacking direction [Atsushi, 0054], a housing that comprises the upper frames (Atsushi, 15; figure 1), the lower frames (Atsushi, 16; figure 1), the busbar frame (Atsushi, 28; figure 1) and a pair of end plates (Atsushi, 14; figure 1). The pair of end plates are at opposite ends of the stacking direction, corresponding to the front and rear surfaces of the claim, and are stacked in the stacking direction of the power storage cells [Atsushi, 0058], corresponding to claimed requirement of the pair of end plates being perpendicular in a longitudinal direction of the battery stack, this is also shown in figure 1 of Atsushi. Condensed water formed on the surface of the end plate goes through the first drainage channel (Atsushi, 31; figure 9) [Atsushi, 0089] and out first drainage channel outlet (Atsushi, 31a; figure 9), and shown in figure 9 of Atsushi to be in the lower corner of the end plate, and while not shown in figure 9, figure 2 of Atsushi, shows the connection of the lower frame fastening portion (Atsushi, 16a; figure 2) connects with the bolts (Atsushi, 17; figure 2), corresponding to the claimed requirement of where the at least one of the pair of end plates meets the housing. Furthermore, figure 9 of Atsushi shows the first drainage channel extends from and inside corner of at least the one pair of end plates to an outside corner of at least one pair of end plates, shown by the arrows depicting flow. However, Atsushi is silent to teach a drainage channel in both lower corners of at least one pair of end plates.
Liu teaches a drainage and ventilation structure in the battery stack [Liu, 0006], wherein at least two water outlets (Liu, 4; figure 3), corresponding to the drainage channels of the claim, are provided on the bottom of the sealing plate (Liu, 2; figure 3), corresponding to the end plate of the claim, wherein figure 3 of Liu depicts two water outlets at the lower corners of the sealing plate.
Liu and Atsushi are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Atsushi to include the at least two water outlets on the bottom of the sealing plate as taught by Liu, because such modification would result in a battery stack that can effectively remove condensed water while preventing hydrogen accumulation inside the battery and improve the battery life and safety [Liu, 0006].
Modified Atsushi teaches the battery module of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the pair of end plates being welded to the housing, excluding a portion where the drainage channel is formed.
Park teaches a battery module (Park, 100a; Figure 2), wherein the end plate (Park, 140; Figure 2) is disposed at the outside of the battery cell, and may be a pair of end plates, that form a housing with the side plates (Park, 160; Figure 2), and the end plates may be coupled to the side plate via welding [Park, 0029].
While Park does not explicitly teach the limitation “excluding a portion where the drainage channel is formed”, it would be obvious for the portion where the drainage portion is formed to be open to the outside, and therefore not welded. Furthermore, modified Atsushi teaches an outlet (Atsushi, 31a; figure 9), for the first drainage channel (Atsushi, 31; figure 9), further indicating the portion where the drainage channel is formed would not be welded, therefore, it can be assumed the end plates are welded to the housing excluding a portion with the drainage channel. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the welding of the end plate, such that the portion where the drainage channel is formed would not be welded or it would be welded. Therefore, absences of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solution disclosed above, wherein the portion where the drainage channel is formed on the end plate would not be welded, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, see MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Atsushi teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the drainage channel (Atsushi, 31; figure 9) has a first and second slope, shown by the flow arrows in figure 9 of Atsushi, wherein the first slope is toward the outside corner of the lower end of at least one of the pair of end plates, shown in the annotated figure 9 below as “1” and depicted as the “first slope”, and an inside lower end part of the at least one of the pair of end plates with a second slope, shown in the annotated figure 9 below as “2” and depicted as the “second slope”.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, modified Atsushi teaches the battery module of claim 3, wherein the annotated close up of the first drainage channel (Atsushi, 31; figure 9) and the first drainage outlet (Atsushi, 31a; figure 9), shows the inclination angle of the first slope is larger than an inclination angle of the second slope, as shown by the double sided arrows to show the inclination angles.
PNG
media_image2.png
631
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, modified Atsushi teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the end plates (Atsushi, 14; figure 2) comprise a rim part protruding towards the housing and the rim comprises the drainage channel, as shown in the annotated close up figure 2 of Atsushi below.
PNG
media_image3.png
489
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, modified Atsushi teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the end plates (Atsushi, 14; figure 2) are stacked with end power storage cell holders (Atsushi, 12a/12b; figure 2) [Atsushi, 0057], corresponding to the insulating cover of the claim, and the end power storage cell holders are made of a synthetic resin [Atsushi, 0057], and said to be insulating [Atsushi, 0014], and figure 2 of Atsushi depicts an inside lower end part of the end plate is on a lower side of the insulating cover.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Atsushi teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the bus bar frame (Atsushi, 28; figure 1), is formed in a U-shape, therefore, creates two sides of the frame, corresponding to the pair of busbar frames of the claim, and figure 1 of Atsushi, shows the frame extends from the front surface of the battery cell stack, and connects to the front of the end plate, shown by the dashed lines of figure 1, and extends to the rear surface of the battery cell stack.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Atsushi teaches the battery module of claim 8, wherein the bus bar frame (Atsushi, 28; figure 1), shown in figure 1 to be comprises of multiple busbars, covers a plurality of electrodes (Atsushi, 11e; figure 1) [Atsushi, 0063], and the bus bar frame extends from the front surface of the battery cell stack, and connects to the front of the end plate (Atsushi, 14; figure 1), shown by the dashed lines of figure 1.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Atsushi teaches a power pack (Atsushi, P; figure 3) including the power storage module (Atsushi, M; figure 3) of claim 1, wherein the first drainage channel (Atsushi, 31; figure 9) comprises guide ribs, corresponding to the drainage device connected to the drainage channel of the claim, connected to the first drainage channel to reliably discharge non-galvanic water on the first face to the first drainage channel and prevent leaking [Atsushi, 0015].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the applied prior art does not suggest the end plate and housing are joined by welding limitation because Atsushi’s bolt fastening structure is incompatible with Park’s welding since one cannot substitute welding for bolts without redesigning the entire frame assembly (p. 5). Applicant also argues Atsushi already achieves structural integrity through its bolt fastening system and there is no problem in Atsushi that welding would solve. (p. 5). Applicant then argues neither Park nor Liu does not meet the drainage channel limitation. (pp. 6 and 7). Applicant argues Liu’s water outlets are merely holes in t he sealing plate and not a drainage channel. (p. 6). Finally, Applicant argues the combination of Liu and Atsushi is improper because it fails to recognize the incompatibility between the references. (p. 7). Applicant argues that one would not add Liu’s connected drainage outlets to Atsushi’s separated drainage system because doing so would defeat Atsushi’s primary safety objective of preventing liquid junctions between galvanic and non galvanic water. (p.8). Applicant argues a PHOSITA would have to abandon Atsushi’s separation principle in favor of Liu’s connected drainage approach. (p. 8).
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).
Additionally, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to applicants argument regarding Atsushi’s bolt fastening structure and Park’s welding, the examiner notes that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. (MPEP, 2145(III)). In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
With respect to Applicants’ arguments that Atsushi’s primary safety objective of preventing liquid junctions between galvanic and non galvanic water, it’s the examiner’s position that it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Liu’s drains in Atsushi’s power storage module. Applicant’s argument to prevent liquid junctions between galvanic and nongalvanic water focuses on the individual teachings of the references and not what the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 JONATHAN J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30 AM - 3 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
JONATHAN JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights