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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 6/04/25. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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) 1-5 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al (WO 2019/155713 A, cited in IDS filed 9/11/24) in view of Fujiwara et al (US 2020/0194753, cited in IDS filed 4/11/24) and Bessho (US 2018/0138560).
See Hashimoto et al (US 2020/0365853 A1, cited in IDS 9/11/24) as an English language equivalent to WO 2019/155713 A.
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto et al teaches a battery module (fig 1, paragraph [0022], power supply device includes battery stack 9) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (fig 1, paragraph [0022], plurality of battery cells 1) stacked in a first direction (fig 1), each of the battery cells including a pair of first surface portions facing each other in the first direction (fig 1, fig 3, stacking surface 1A), a pair of second surface portions facing each other in a second directional orthogonal to the first direction (fig 1, fig 3, side surfaces 1B), a pair of third surface portions facing each other in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction (fig 1, 3, top and bottom surfaces 1C and 1D);
an outer shell that houses the stacked battery cells (fig 2, note that the outer shell is the assembly including end plates 7 and bind bars 8 housing the stack 9);
elastic structures (figs 2-4, paragraph [0022], flexible heat insulating base material member 4 absorbs expansion of stacking surface 1A of battery cell 1), each of which is provided between the battery cells adjacent to each other in the first direction (figs 2-4); and
fixed structures (figs 2-4, frames 3) that fix the battery cells to the outer shell (figs 2-4),
wherein the elastic structures are disposed so as to cover central portions of the first surface portions (figs 2-3, note the heat insulating member 4 covers the central portion of the surfaces of battery cell that face one another), and
the fixed structures are disposed so as to cover outer circumference portions of the first surface portions (figs 2-4, note the frame 3 cover the outer circumference portions).
Hashimoto et al is quiet to an electrode body in which a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate are arranged in the first direction in a space formed by the first surface portions, the second surface portions, and the third surface portions.
Fujiwara et al teaches a power storage device comprising a battery stack in which a plurality of batteries and a plurality of spacers are alternately arranged, a pair of end plates disposed on both sides in the first direction, and a compression spring serving as a pressurizing means for pressurizing the battery stack (abstract). Each of the secondary batteries comprise a battery laminate 10 comprising an electrode assembly 12 (paragraph [0002], paragraph [0019]), wherein each electrode assembly 12 is a laminate type assembly obtained by alternately laminating a plurality of positive electrodes and a plurality of negative electrodes in the first direction with separators interposed therebetween (paragraph [0021]).
Although Hashimoto et al is quiet to the specific structure of the secondary battery cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hashimoto et al such that the secondary battery cells include an electrode assembly formed as a laminate type obtained by alternately laminating a plurality of positive electrodes and a plurality of negative electrodes, as the structure is well known and conventional, as taught in Fujiwara et al. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Hashimoto et al additionally teaches each of the elastic structures disposed at ends of the plurality of battery cells stacked in the first direction is sandwiched by an end plate and a battery cell at each of the ends of the plurality of battery cells stacked in the first direction (fig 2, note the arrangement of end separator 14 being sandwiched by end plate 7 and battery cell 1), but is quiet to the end separator being sandwiched by a spacer that has a hollow box shape and a battery cell.
Bessho teaches a power supply device provided with a plurality of battery cells, each having a prismatic external form, a separator connected to each battery cell, wherein the separator is formed from an insulating material and is elastically deformable, and a fastening member that fastens a battery stack obtained by stacking the battery cells (abstract, fig 1). The fastening member has a pair of end plates (4) disposed on both end faces of battery stack (9) and bind bar (5) having both ends connected to a pair of end plates (4) (paragraph [0024]). The end plates are formed into a rectangular plate shape which is almost equal to or slightly larger than the outer shape of battery cell 1 (paragraph [0105]) and the end plate can be a laminate of two metal plates 4A and 4B (paragraph [0105], fig 1-3), with end separator 12 serving as an insulating material between the end plate and battery stack (paragraph [0105], fig 1-3). Note that plate 4B is construed as corresponding to the claimed spacer having a hollow box shape, as Bessho shows in figure 4 the end plate 4B is box shaped, hollow, and defines a space between plate 4A and end separator 12. The end separator 12 is shown sandwiched between 4B and battery cell 1.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the end plate of Hashimoto et al so as to be a laminate of two metal plates, such as that shown in Bessho, as the end plates of Bessho perform the same function of fixing the battery stack and are sufficiently rigid so as to not be deformed when in a pressurized state (paragraph [0104-0105]). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Note that the interior end plate 4B of said combination would meet the limitation of the claimed spacer, that is a hollow box shape, that sandwiches the end separator.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches wherein the elastic structures have a size that covers the entire electrode body as seen in the first direction (note Hashimoto’s insulating member 4 substantially covers the battery cell, as shown in figs 2-4 (doesn’t show electrodes), and would be obvious to cover the portion corresponding to the entire electrode body (where heat is generated) so as to absorb the thermal expansion from the battery cell, note Fujiwara showing the elastic members 24 covering the entire electrode assemblies 12 (fig 3)).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combination teaches wherein the fixed structures include resin frames to cover the outer circumference portions of the battery cells (Hashimoto, paragraph [0034], frames 3 can be formed of plastics including resins), and the battery cells are fixed to the outer shell by fixing the frames to the outer shell with the battery cells put in the frame (Hashimoto, see figs 1-3 for arrangement of cells within the frames and outer shell).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 15, the combination teaches wherein the outer shell includes a pair of end plates to sandwich the entire stacked battery cells from both sides in the first direction (Hashimoto, fig 1-2, end plates 7) and a pair of side plates to sandwich the entire stacked battery cells from both sides in the second direction (Hashimoto, figs 1-2, bind bars 8), the side plates extending in the first direction (fig 2), and wherein the fixed structures are located between the side plates and the battery cells and are fixed to the pair of side plates (Hashimoto, figs 1-2, paragraph [0035], bind bars are fixed to end plates and fixes battery cells in the pressed state).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, the combination teaches wherein each of the side plates has flange portions in both end portions in the first direction, the flange portions extending in the first direction and then being bent toward the battery cells in the second direction, and wherein the end plates are coupled to the flange portions via bolts (Hashimoto, figs 1-2, note the ends of the bind bar 8 are shown as flanges bending towards the second direction, coupled to end plates 7 with bolts).
Regarding claims 13, and 16, Hashimoto et al teaches the flexible insulating member absorbing a thermal expansion between the battery cells (abstract), but is quiet to wherein a forced used by each of the elastic structures to press an adjacent one of the battery cells is set to 1 kN to 10 kN.
Fujiwara et al teaches a power storage device comprising a battery stack in which a plurality of batteries and a plurality of spacers are alternately arranged, a pair of end plates disposed on both sides in the first direction, and a compression spring serving as a pressurizing means for pressurizing the battery stack (abstract). The spacer includes a core material having rigidity (paragraph [0031]) formed of a plate-like resin material (paragraph [0032]) and an elastic member 24 (paragraph [0031]) that is more flexible than the core member, so as to deform with the change of volume of the secondary battery (paragraph [0032]). Fujiwara et al teaches that the elastic members 24 may be elastically deformed (paragraph [0049]), and that a predetermined pressing force is applied so that the intervals between the electrode assemblies can be uniformly maintained (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressing force, and therefore optimize the force used by each of the elastic structures to press an adjacent one of the battery cells to be 1 kN to 10 kN, as Fujiwara recognizes that the pressing force is determined so that the electrode assemblies can be uniformly maintained. Note that although Fujiwara discloses a pressing force, the elastic members that receive the pressing force will have a reactionary force.
"[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claims 14, and 17, the combination teaches wherein the battery module is installed in a vehicle (Hashimoto, paragraph [0001], power supply device mounted on an electric vehicle), and a length in the first direction of the battery stacked body having the plurality of battery cells housed in the outer shell is equal to a length between a pair of side frames (Hashimoto, fig 1-2, note length of the stacked body is equal to the length of the spacing between the bind bars 8).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al as modified by Fujiwara et al and Bessho as applied to claims 5 and 12 above, and further in view of Toyota (JP 2017-111914A, cited in IDS filed 8/18/22) and Sekine (US 9,537,128, previously cited).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, the combination is quiet to a cabinet to which a battery stacked body having the plurality of battery cells housed in the outer shell is mounted, wherein each of the side plates has a bracket that extends toward an opposite side of the battery cells in the second direction, the bracket being fixed to the cabinet, and the cabinet has a support structure coupled to the bracket, the support structure supporting the battery stacked body.
Toyota teaches an assembled battery including a plurality of storage elements (paragraph [0002]), an exterior body accommodating the power storage elements, and a restraining member that sandwiches and integrally restrains the plurality of power storage elements is known (paragraph [0002]). Toyota teaches a battery pack that is capable of ensuring a fixed strength of the battery module while suppressing a decrease in heat dissipation (paragraph [0005]). Toyota teaches a housing 2 including a frame 81 (corresponding to the claimed cabinet), accommodating battery module 1B (fig 4-5, paragraph [0049]). The frame is formed of connecting metal beam portions 82 (figs 4-5, paragraph [0049], corresponding to the claimed support structure). The battery module is held in the regions K of the housing (fig 4) by hanging via bracket 56 on the pair of beam portions by bolts (paragraph [0052]). Note that in figure 5, the battery module is further fastened from the sides to the frame of the cabinet by bolts 51c (paragraph [0054]), and bolt 52d applies a force to a plate 83 on the side of the battery module to fasten the battery module to the first wall portion (paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination so as to include a cabinet and brackets for supporting the stacked battery body onto the cabinet, as Toyota teaches an arrangement including a plurality of battery modules accommodated in a frame of a housing is known, and that the specific arrangement of connecting structures can ensure a fixed strength of the module while suppressing a decrease in heat dissipation (paragraph [0005]).
The combination is quiet to the attachment being at brackets of the side plates that extend towards an opposite side of the battery cell.
Sekine teaches an assembly battery including sides plate 133 disposed in a pair on both sides in the cell width direction (fig 2). Each of the side plates is provided with four brackets 135 secured by welding (fig 2, note brackets 135 protrude outward away from the battery), the brackets include screw holes for holding and securing the assembly battery 100 to a housing frame portion of a vehicle, or to a housing, storing a plurality of the assembled batteries (fig 1-2, col 4 lines 23-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination such that the side plates of Hashimoto, further include brackets that extend towards an opposite side of the battery cell, in order to secure the battery to the housing frame taught in Toyota.
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the combination teaches wherein a plurality of battery stacked bodies are mounted to the cabinet with the battery stacked bodies arranged in the second direction (see fig 4-5, accommodated in the housing), the battery stacked body being one of the plurality of battery stacked bodies, a plurality of brackets are present and are mounted to the support structure with the brackets placed on the support structure in a third direction, the bracket being one of the plurality of brackets, and the brackets on one side of the side plate in the second direction are staggered with the brackets on the other side of the side plate in the second direction (note combination to include brackets to the side plates, the arrangement of the bolts shown in fig 5 of Toyota, where brackets would be present, are shown staggered, as bolts 52d direct force to a central portion of the battery cells).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches wherein portions of the battery stacked bodies excluding the brackets are separated from the cabinet with the battery stacked bodies supported by the support structure (see combination, where Toyota shows in figure 5 the stacked bodies being separated from the frame where bolts 52d apply force towards side wall 2s).
Regarding claim 9, refer to the rejection of claims 13 and 16 above. Note that claim 9 is identical to claims 13 and 16, except that claim 9 depends from claim 8 (whereas claims 13 and 16 depend from claims 1 and 2, respectively).
Regarding claim 10, refer to the rejection of claims 14 and 17 above. Note that claim 10 is identical to claims 14 and 17, except that claim 10 depends from claim 9 (whereas claims 14 and 17 depend from claims 1 and 2, respectively).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a battery module having the amended feature of “each of the elastic structures disposed at ends of the plurality of battery cells stacked in the first direction is sandwiched by a spacer and a battery cell at each of the ends of the plurality of battery cells stacked in the first direction, and the spacer has a hollow box shape.”
This feature is disclosed in newly cited Bessho (US 2018/0138560). See rejection above, where Bessho similarly teaches a plurality of prismatic battery cells with a separator connected to each battery cell (abstract) and a fastening member (corresponding to the claimed outer shell, comprising end plates and bind bars) that fastens a battery stack obtained by stacking the battery cells (abstract, fig 1). Figs 2-3 show that the end plate 4 may be a laminate of end plates 4A and 4B. Note that plate 4B is construed as corresponding to the claimed spacer having a hollow box shape, as Bessho shows in figure 4 the end plate 4B is box shaped, hollow, and defines a space between plate 4A and end separator 12. The end separator 12 is shown sandwiched between 4B and battery cell 1.
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735