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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 2 and 4.
Claims 1-11 have been examined on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 08/14/2020. It is noted that applicant has filed a certified copy of the application, KR10-2020-0102382, as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Each information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on or before 10/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner and an initial copy is attached herewith.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see [0007-0008] of the PGPUB). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" and "400" both appear to be pointing to the battery cell stack in Fig. 4. However, “400” is described as the connecting portion in the specification. Fig. 4 should be corrected to show 400 pointing to the connecting portion. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a connecting portion that connects the pair of busbar frames and comprises a flexible flat cable (FFC)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Interpretations
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.). The following recitations are considered to be limitations directed to an intended use, that do not structurally distinguish the invention:
In claim 1, “a housing for the battery cell stack”
In claim 2, “a pair of insulating covers for covering an outer surface”
In claim 2, “a pair of end plates for covering an outer surface”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-7 and 9 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.
In claim 2, the recitation “wherein the film portion guides moisture inside the batter module to a passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively”, is indefinite because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim thus confusing the metes, bounds and scope of the claim as claim 2 depends from claim 1 which is drawn to a battery module. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “wherein the film portion is configured to guide moisture inside the battery module to a passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively”. Claims 3-7 are rejected based on dependence on claim 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the batter module" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination, this limitation has been interpreted as “the battery module”. Claims 3-7 are rejected based on dependence on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the lower side " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-6 are rejected based on dependence on claim 3.
In claim 7, it is unclear if the recitation of moisture refers back to the previously recited moisture of claim 2 or refers to another moisture. Therefore, claim 7 is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, the former interpretation is used.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 7, the recitation “…the passage is discharged to the outside”, is indefinite because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim thus confusing the metes, bounds and scope of the claim as claim 7 depends from claim 1 which is drawn to a battery module. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “…the passage is configured to be discharged to the outside”. Claims 3-7 are rejected based on dependence on claim 2.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the space" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20190198952A1) in view of Takeishi (JPH08298103A, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a battery module (Fig. 1; 1) comprising:
a battery cell stack (Fig. 1; 10) comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1; 11);
PNG
media_image1.png
686
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a housing (Fig. 1; 20-40) for the battery cell stack (10);
a pair of busbar frames (Fig. 1; 60a, 60b) formed at a front portion (annotated Fig. 1; F) and a back portion (annotated Fig. 1; B) of the battery cell stack (10);
a connecting portion (Fig. 9; 511c) that connects ([0109]) the pair of busbar frames (60a, 60b) and comprises a flexible flat cable (FFC) (“flexible print circuit”; [0113]);
a connector (Fig. 9; 511b, 511a) formed on (Fig. 9) each of the busbar frames (60a, 60b) and coupled to (Fig. 9) the connecting portion (511c).
Choi fails to disclose a film portion formed between the connector and an upper portion of the housing.
Takeishi discloses a battery module (Fig. 1; [0026]) comprising:
a battery cell stack (Fig. 1; 2) comprising a plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1; 2a);
a housing (Fig. 1; 1, 4) for the battery cell stack (2);
a film portion (“waterproof plastic film”; [0026]; Fig. 1; 3) formed between a connector (“wiring circuit” located in 1 of Fig. 1 per [0007-0008]) and an upper portion (Fig. 1; 4) of the housing (1,4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Choi by adding the film portion taught by Takeishi such that it was between Choi’s connector and upper portion of the housing in order to reliably avoid the penetration of water and moisture and maintain the electrical reliability of the battery cell stack as Takeishi teaches ([0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Takeishi fails to disclose wherein a size of the film portion corresponds to a size of the upper portion of the housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
312
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Takeishi discloses wherein a size (annotated Fig. 1; S1) of a film portion (Fig. 1; 3) corresponds to a size (annotated Fig. 1; S2) of an upper portion (Fig. 1; 4) of a housing (Fig. 1; 1, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto by making a size of the film portion correspond to a size of the upper portion of the housing, in order to reliably avoid the penetration of water and moisture and maintain the electrical reliability of the battery cell stack as Takeishi teaches ([0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Choi in view of Takeishi discloses a battery pack (Fig. 1; 1) comprising the battery module (1) of claim 1.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20190198952A1) in view of Takeishi (JPH08298103A, machine translation used for rejection below), as applied to claim 1 as set forth above and further in view of Lee (US-20190389318-A1), Kubota (US-20040089467-A1) and Yamamoto (US-20160036103-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Choi in view of Takeishi discloses a pair of covers (Fig. 1; 30a, 30b) for covering (Fig. 1) an outer surface (Fig. 1; outer surface of 60a and 60b) of each of the pair busbar frames (60a, 60b), respectively (Fig. 1).
Choi in view of Takeishi fails to disclose insulating covers, a pair of end plates for covering an outer surface of each of the pair of insulating covers, respectively, or
wherein the film portion guides moisture inside the batter module to a passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively.
Lee discloses a battery module (Fig. 2; M) comprising:
a pair of busbar frames (Fig. 3; 120, 130);
a pair of insulating ([0105]) covers (Fig. 3; 3) for covering an outer surface (Fig. 3; outer surface of 120, 130) of each of the pair busbar frames (120, 130), respectively; and
a pair of end plates (Fig. 3; 4) for covering (Fig. 3) an outer surface (Fig. 3; outer surface of 3) of each of the pair of insulating covers (3), respectively (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Takeishi by substituting the non-descript material of Choi’s covers, for the insulating material of Lee, such that the covers were insulating covers, and adding the pair of end plates taught by Lee such that the end plates covered an outer surface of each of the pair of insulating covers, in order to prevent short circuiting ([0115]) and protect the internal structure of the battery module ([0108]) as taught by Lee.
Choi in view of Takeishi and Lee still fails to disclose wherein the film portion guides moisture inside the battery module to a passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively.
Kubota teaches a film portion (Fig. 5; 2) that guides moisture (“water dropped onto the upper wall portion 9”; [0056]) to a passage (“gap between the upper wall portion 9 and the upper wall portion 20”;[0056]; passage is formed in a pair (Fig. 5; 3, 4) of insulating (“synthetic resin”; [0044]) covers (Fig. 5; 3, 4) and directs the moisture to the outside of the covers per Fig. 5 and [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Takeishi and Lee by substituting the configuration of the insulating covers and the film portion of Choi in view of Takeishi and Lee for the configuration of the film portion and insulating covers of Kubota such that the film portion guides moisture inside the battery module through a passage formed in the insulating covers, to the outside of the insulating covers, as taught by Kubota, in order to prevent water from collecting on the film portion by rapidly discharging it as taught by Kubota ([0056]).
Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee and Kubota fails to disclose a passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively.
Yamamoto discloses a battery module (“energy storage apparatus”; Fig. 1) comprising:
a pair (Fig. 2; 30) of end plates (Fig. 17; 306)
a pair (Fig. 2; 30) of covers (Fig. 17; 301, 302), respectively,
a passage (“a gap”; [0146]; Fig. 17; flow path of W) formed between the end plates (306) and the insulating covers (301, 302), respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee and Kubota by adding a passage formed between each of the end plates and the insulating covers, respectively, as taught by Yamamoto, to the passage of Choi, Takeishi, Lee and Kubota, such that the film portion is configured to guide moisture inside the battery module to a passage formed in the insulating covers and between the end plates and insulating covers in order to discharge water to the outside ([0146]) as taught by Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 3, Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto discloses wherein:
each of the insulating (Lee [0105]) covers (Choi 30a, 30b) comprises an extension portion (Kubota Fig. 5; 16, 17) that extends from the lower side (Kubota annotated Fig. 5; LS) of the film portion (Takeshi 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
359
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto discloses wherein: the extension portion (Kubota 16, 17) is inclined downward (Kubota Fig. 5) in a direction (annotated Kubota Fig. 5; direction D) towards the respective end plate (Lee 3, 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
330
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto discloses wherein: a tip (Kubota Fig. 5; 17) of the extension portion (Kubota 16, 17) is curved upward (Kubota Fig. 5; 17 curves upward from 19).
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto fails to disclose wherein: a crack between the upper portion of the housing and each of the end plates is connected with the respective extension portion.
Lee discloses a crack (annotated Fig. 2; C, i.e. seam between EP and UP) between an upper portion (annotated Fig. 2; UP) of a housing (annotated Fig. 2; H) and each of a pair of end plates (annotated Fig. 2; EP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto by joining the end plates to the upper portion of the housing such that there was a crack between the end plates and the upper portion of the housing in order to protect the internal structure of the battery module
PNG
media_image5.png
544
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0108]) as taught by Lee.
The examiner notes that the crack of Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto is connected with the respective extension portion because both the upper portion of the housing and the end plates are directly or indirectly connected with the insulating covers which comprise the extension portion.
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Takeishi, Lee, Kubota and Yamamoto discloses wherein: the passage (Kubota; “gap between the upper wall portion 9 and the upper wall portion 20”;[0056]; Yamamoto “a gap”; [0146]; Fig. 17; flow path of W) is connected with (Yamamoto Fig. 17) the outside (Choi Fig. 2; outside 20, 30a, 30b and 40) of the housing (Choi 20-40), and wherein moisture (Yamamoto Fig. 17; W) in the passage (Kubota “gap between the upper wall portion 9 and the upper wall portion 20”;[0056]; Yamamoto “a gap”; [0146]; Fig. 17; flow path of W) is discharged to the outside (Yamamoto Fig. 17; [0146]) of the housing (Choi 20-40) through the passage (Kubota “gap between the upper wall portion 9 and the upper wall portion 20”;[0056]; Yamamoto “a gap”; [0146]; Fig. 17; flow path of W).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20190198952A1) in view of Takeishi (JPH08298103A, machine translation used for rejection below), as applied to claim 8 as set forth above and further in view of Zhang (US-20180277800-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Takeishi fails to disclose wherein the film portion is coupled with opposite edge portions of the upper portion of the housing by a plurality of adhesive members, and
a moisture moving passage is formed in the space formed between the plurality of adhesive members.
PNG
media_image6.png
363
364
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Takeishi discloses wherein a film portion (Fig. 1; 3) is coupled with opposite edge portions (annotated Fig. 1; OEP) of an upper portion (Fig. 1; 4) of a housing (Fig. 1; 1, 4) by an adhesive member (Fig. 1; 6c; “adhesive tape”; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Takeishi, by coupling the film portion with opposite edge portions of the upper portion of the housing with an adhesive member in order to reliably avoid the penetration of water and moisture and maintain the electrical reliability of the battery cell stack as Takeishi teaches ([0020]).
Choi in view of Takeishi fails to disclose a plurality of adhesive members or wherein a moisture moving passage is formed in the space formed between the plurality of adhesive members.
Zhang discloses a plurality of adhesive members (Fig. 2; 30; [0084]) and wherein a moisture moving passage (Fig. 2; space between each element 30; “spaced apart”; [0084]) is formed in the space (Fig. 2; space between each element 30; “spaced apart”; [0084]) formed between (Fig. 2) the plurality of adhesive members (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Takeishi by substituting the adhesive member for the plurality of adhesive members taught by Zhang such that a moisture moving passage is formed in the space formed between the plurality of adhesive members, in order to make the bonding force large ([0084]), as taught by Zhang, between the film portion and the upper portion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20190198952A1) in view of Takeishi (JPH08298103A, machine translation used for rejection below), as applied to claim 1 as set forth above and further in view of Yoo (US20160155987A1).
Regarding claim 10, Choi in view of Takeishi discloses wherein: the film portion (Takeishi 2) is formed of a sheet (Fig. 1; 3). Choi in view of Takeishi fails to disclose polycarbonate.
Yoo discloses a film portion (“encapsulant film”; [0007]; for batteries per [0002]) that is formed of a polycarbonate (“a polycarbonate-based resin”; [0030]) sheet (“film”; [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Choi in view of Takeishi by substituting the material of the film portion of Choi in view of Takeishi for the polycarbonate material taught by Yoo in order to secure a film with an excellent water barrier property ([0028]) as taught by Yoo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723