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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13-21 are pending in the application.
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 15 and 17 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 15 and 17 both recite the limitation "the protrusion" in line 3 of each respective claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For compact prosecution purposes, Examiner will interpret “the protrusion” to refer to “the protrusion portion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 13-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terauchi et al. (WO 2019130936, cited by Applicant, referring to US 20210091349 as translation thereof, hereinafter "Terauchi") in view of Shin et al. (US 20200411815, hereinafter "Shin").
Regarding claim 1, Terauchi teaches a power supply device (100) (“battery”) [0030] comprising:
a stack in which a plurality of battery cells (1) (“power storage cells”) are stacked in a first direction (“stacked direction”), the stack having an end surface located at an end portion in the stacked direction [Fig. 1, 0030]; and
a binding bar and end plate configuration (“restraint portion”) that restrains the stack in the stacked direction [Fig. 1, 0030], wherein the binding bar and end plate configuration includes
a binding bar (4) (‘first member”) having a plate-shaped bar (6) (“main body portion”) and an engagement block (5) (“protrusion portion”) that protrudes from the plate-shaped bar in a second direction intersecting the stacked direction [Fig. 6, 0033],
an end plate (3) (“second member”) having a second main body provided with a fitting part (3a) (“recess portion”) that receives at least a portion of the protrusion portion in the second direction [Fig. 6, 0033],
the end plate (“one of the first member and the second member”) is provided to face the end surface of the stack [Fig. 6, 0033],
the engagement block and the fitting part are engaged with each other [Fig. 6, 0033], wherein
in the second direction, the depth (d) of the groove (3f), or fitting part, (“depth of the recess portion”) is deeper than a protruding thickness (t) (“height”) of the engagement block from the plate-shaped bar [Fig. 6, 0064, “height (d) of stopper 3b as a depth of groove 3f set to be greater than thickness (t) of engagement block 5”].
Terauchi further teaches that the engagement block has:
a tip portion located at an end portion in the second direction [Fig. 6, the tip portion is the surface of the engagement block facing the fitting part], and
a pair of first surface portions provided at both ends of the engagement block in the first direction, the first surface portions extending along the second direction [Fig. 6, the surface facing stopper 3b and the surface opposite].
Terauchi further teaches that the fitting part has:
a first segment portion and second segment portion each protruding from the second main body portion to the first main body portion [Fig. 6, stopper 3b is the first segment portion and the stopper on the other side of the fitting part is the second segment portion], and
a bottom surface portion that faces the tip portion of the engagement block [Fig. 6].
Terauchi further teaches that:
the plate-shaped bar is in direct abutment with each of the first segment portion and the second segment portion [Fig. 6],
each of the first segment portion and second segment portion extends along the second direction, and has a second surface portion, and has a second surface portion that faces one of the pair of first surface portions [Fig. 6, surfaces facing engagement block],
the binding bar (“first member”) is a restraint member, a pair of which are provided at both sides of the stack and the end plate in the second direction [Fig. 1, 0002],
a pair of end plates (“second members”) are provided at both ends of the stack in the first direction [Fig. 1, 0002],
the first segment portion is located on the side of the plurality of battery cells with respect to the fitting part [Fig. 6, stopper 3b is on the side closer to battery cells 1], and
the second segment portion is located on the opposite side from the plurality of power storage cells with respect to the fitting part [Fig. 6].
Terauchi does not specifically teach an adhesive agent layer that adheres the binding bar and the end plate with the adhesive agent layer being interposed between the engagement block and the fitting part.
Shin teaches analogous art of a battery module housing for providing mechanical support and protection to a stack of battery cells [0040]. Shin teaches that the housing is formed from top and bottom plates, as well as side plates, the plates being adhered together at specific points with an adhesive (“adhesive agent layer”) [Fig. 3, 0046].
Shin discloses that by using an adhesive, rather than a weld, to assemble the housing, the housing can be more easily disassembled [0045], which could make maintenance of the battery cell stack and housing easier. Terauchi discloses that it is advantageous to reduce the overall weight of the battery [0061, 0066, 0070, 0076]. Adhering the first and second members to each other with an adhesive agent layer, as opposed to a bolt, would reduce the weight of the battery. Furthermore, Shin’s teachings show that it is a known technique to provide adhesive between assembled or mated components in order to provide the predictable result of increased adherence among components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power supply device taught by Terauchi to include an adhesive agent layer that adheres the binding bar and end plates to each other interposed between the engagement block and fitting part, the adhesive agent layer being provided between the tip portion of the engagement block and the bottom surface portion, and between the pair of the first surface portions and the second surface portions, in order to bind the binding bar and end plates more securely without adding too much weight to the battery, and to allow for easier disassembling if needed for maintenance.
PNG
media_image1.png
543
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1: Terauchi Fig. 6 (annotated by Examiner)
Regarding claim 3, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 1, wherein the plate-shaped bar is in direct abutment with the end plate [Fig. 6, 0059].
Regarding claim 13, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 1. Terauchi is silent so to whether the binding bar and end plate were formed by extrusion. However, the claim is entirely a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, modified Terauchi’s binding bar and end plate (“first member” and “second member”) appear to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the binding bar and end plate (“first member” and “second member”) of Terauchi. Regarding product-by-process limitations, see MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 14, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 1, wherein the plate-shaped bar and the engagement block are formed by welding separate members to each other [0058, “Engagement block 5 made of metal is welded to be fixed to an inner side of plate-shaped bar 6”].
Regarding claim 15, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 1, wherein, in the first direction, a thickness of the first segment portion is greater than a thickness of the second segment portion, and a thickness of the engagement block is greater than a thickness of the second segment portion [Fig. 6, stopper 3b and engagement block are thicker in a first direction that the second segment portion on the other side of the engagement block].
Regarding claim 16, Terauchi teaches a power supply device (100) (“battery”) [0030] comprising:
a stack in which a plurality of battery cells (1) (“power storage cells”) are stacked in a first direction (“stacked direction”), the stack having an end surface located at an end portion in the stacked direction [Fig. 1, 0030]; and
a binding bar and end plate configuration (“restraint portion”) that restrains the stack in the stacked direction [Fig. 1, 0030], wherein the binding bar and end plate configuration includes
a binding bar (4) (‘first member”) having a plate-shaped bar (6) (“main body portion”) and an engagement block (5) (“protrusion portion”) that protrudes from the plate-shaped bar in a second direction intersecting the stacked direction [Fig. 6, 0033],
an end plate (3) (“second member”) having a second main body provided with a fitting part (3a) (“recess portion”) that receives at least a portion of the protrusion portion in the second direction [Fig. 6, 0033],
the end plate (“one of the first member and the second member”) is provided to face the end surface of the stack [Fig. 6, 0033],
the engagement block and the fitting part are engaged with each other [Fig. 6, 0033], wherein
in the second direction, the depth (d) of the groove (3f), or fitting part, (“depth of the recess portion”) is deeper than a protruding thickness (t) (“height”) of the engagement block from the plate-shaped bar [Fig. 6, 0064, “height (d) of stopper 3b as a depth of groove 3f set to be greater than thickness (t) of engagement block 5”].
Terauchi further teaches that the engagement block has:
a tip portion located at an end portion in the second direction [Fig. 6, the tip portion is the surface of the engagement block facing the fitting part], and
a pair of first surface portions provided at both ends of the engagement block in the first direction, the first surface portions extending along the second direction [Fig. 6, the surface facing stopper 3b and the surface opposite].
Terauchi further teaches that the fitting part has:
a first segment portion and second segment portion each protruding from the second main body portion to the first main body portion [Fig. 6, stopper 3b is the first segment portion and the stopper on the other side of the fitting part is the second segment portion], and
a bottom surface portion that faces the tip portion of the engagement block [Fig. 6].
Terauchi further teaches that:
the plate-shaped bar is in direct abutment with each of the first segment portion and the second segment portion [Fig. 6],
each of the first segment portion and second segment portion extends along the second direction, and has a second surface portion, and has a second surface portion that faces one of the pair of first surface portions [Fig. 6, surfaces facing engagement block],
the binding bar is a restraint member, a pair of which are provided at both sides of the stack and the end plate in the second direction [Fig. 1, 0002],
a pair of end plates are provided at both ends of the stack in the first direction [Fig. 1, 0002],
the first segment portion is located on the side of the plurality of battery cells with respect to the fitting part [Fig. 6, stopper 3b is on the side closer to battery cells 1], and
the second segment portion is located on the opposite side from the plurality of power storage cells with respect to the fitting part [Fig. 6].
Terauchi does not specifically teach a configuration in which the binding bar (“first member”) is an end plate provided at both ends of the stack in the first direction and the end plate (“second member”) is a restraint member provided at both sides of the stack and the end plate in the second direction. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the binding bars and end plates of Terauchi so that the binding bars are provided at both ends of the stack in the first direction and the end plates are provided at both sides of the stack in the second direction, or to change the stacking direction of the battery cells, as that would not modify the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C). Additionally, the reversal of the two parts, the binding bars and end plates, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI A).
Terauchi does not specifically teach an adhesive agent layer that adheres the binding bar and the end plate with the adhesive agent layer being interposed between the engagement block and the fitting part.
Shin teaches analogous art of a battery module housing for providing mechanical support and protection to a stack of battery cells [0040]. Shin teaches that the housing is formed from top and bottom plates, as well as side plates, the plates being adhered together at specific points with an adhesive (“adhesive agent layer”) [Fig. 3, 0046].
Shin discloses that by using an adhesive, rather than a weld, to assemble the housing, the housing can be more easily disassembled [0045], which could make maintenance of the battery cell stack and housing easier. Terauchi discloses that it is advantageous to reduce the overall weight of the battery [0061, 0066, 0070, 0076]. Adhering the first and second members to each other with an adhesive agent layer, as opposed to a bolt, would reduce the weight of the battery. Furthermore, Shin’s teachings show that it is a known technique to provide adhesive between assembled or mated components in order to provide the predictable result of increased adherence among components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power supply device taught by Terauchi to include an adhesive agent layer that adheres the binding bar and end plates to each other interposed between the engagement block and fitting part, the adhesive agent layer being provided between the tip portion of the engagement block and the bottom surface portion, and between the pair of the first surface portions and the second surface portions, in order to bind the binding bar and end plates more securely without adding too much weight to the battery, and to allow for easier disassembling if needed for maintenance.
Regarding claim 17, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 16, wherein, in the first direction, a thickness of the first segment portion is greater than a thickness of the second segment portion, and a thickness of the engagement block is greater than a thickness of the second segment portion [Fig. 6, stopper 3b and engagement block are thicker in a first direction that the second segment portion on the other side of the engagement block].
Regarding claim 18, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 16, wherein the plate-shaped bar is in direct abutment with the end plate [Fig. 6, 0059].
Regarding claim 20, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 16. Terauchi is silent so to whether the binding bar and end plate were formed by extrusion. However, the claim is entirely a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, modified Terauchi’s binding bar and end plate (“first member” and “second member”) appear to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the binding bar and end plate (“first member” and “second member”) of Terauchi. Regarding product-by-process limitations, see MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 21, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 1, wherein the plate-shaped bar and the engagement block are formed by welding separate members to each other [0058, “Engagement block 5 made of metal is welded to be fixed to an inner side of plate-shaped bar 6”].
Claims 5, 7, 9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terauchi in view of Shin, as applied to at least claims 1, 3, and 16 above, and further in view of Ogino et al. (US 2020/0212525, cited by Applicant, hereinafter "Ogino").
Regarding claims 5 and 7, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claims 1 and 3, as described in the rejections for instant claims 1 and 3. Terauchi also teaches that the binding bar is provided along the stacking direction. Terauchi does not specifically teach that the binding bar includes a flow path portion through which cooling water is able to flow.
Ogino teaches analogous art of a battery stack comprising restraint members along the stacking direction of a plurality of battery cells and on the end surfaces of the battery stack [Fig. 1, Abstract, entire disclosure relied upon]. Ogino teaches that the restraint members (23, 23a, 23b) along the stacking direction of the battery cells includes coolant passages (“flow paths”) through which a coolant such as cooling water is able to flow [Fig. 2, 0035].
Ogino teaches that Ogino discloses that in conventional cooling methods, a cooler is provided around the outside of the restraint members, increasing the size of the power supply unit and making cooling less effective since the heat transfer must occur through a greater thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the power supply device, or battery, taught by modified Terauchi to include coolant passages through which cooling water can flow within the binding bars along the stacking direction as taught by Ogino, in order to minimize the size of the power supply device and make cooling more efficient.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claims 5 and 7, as described above. Terauchi does not specifically teach a coolant passage separated from the engagement block and fitting part in the stacking direction and disposed along a third direction intersecting the stacking direction and second direction.
Ogino further teaches that certain portions of the coolant passages, such as connecting passage (73), extend in a Z direction (“third direction”) intersecting the X direction (“stacking direction” or “first direction”) and the Y direction (“second direction”) [0034].
While Ogino does not explicitly say that the connecting passage is separated from a portion in which the restraint members are connected, there are only so many locations to position the connecting passage, therefore it would be obvious to try placing the connecting passage separate in order to prevent any leakages of cooling water if the portion where the restraint members were connected were to be compromised. When there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, it is obvious to try those solutions (see MPEP 2143 I). Furthermore, the particular placement of parts is obvious if the placement does not modify the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the power supply device taught by Terauchi to separate the cooling passages from the engagement block and fitting part in the stacking direction and have them disposed along a third direction.
Regarding claim 19, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 16, as described in the rejection for instant claim 16. Terauchi does not specifically teach either the binding bar or end plate including a flow path portion through which cooling water is able to flow.
Ogino teaches analogous art of a battery stack comprising restraint members along the stacking direction of a plurality of battery cells and on the end surfaces of the battery stack [Fig. 1, Abstract, entire disclosure relied upon]. Ogino teaches that the restraint members (23, 23a, 23b) along the stacking direction of the battery cells includes coolant passages (“flow paths”) through which a coolant such as cooling water is able to flow [Fig. 2, 0035].
Ogino teaches that Ogino discloses that in conventional cooling methods, a cooler is provided around the outside of the restraint members, increasing the size of the power supply unit and making cooling less effective since the heat transfer must occur through a greater thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the power supply device, or battery, taught by modified Terauchi to include coolant passages through which cooling water can flow within the member disposed along the stacking direction as taught by Ogino, in order to minimize the size of the power supply device and make cooling more efficient.
Claims 13 and 20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terauchi in view of Shin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kellner et al. (US 2018/0337375, hereinafter "Kellner").
Regarding claims 13 and 20, modified Terauchi teaches the power supply device of claim 1. Terauchi does not teach the binding bar and end plate being formed by extrusion.
Kellner teaches analogous art of a high energy voltage accumulator (“power supply device” or “battery”) with supporting structure plates and cooling ducts within the supporting structure plates [Abstract, entire disclosure relied upon]. Kellner teaches that the supporting structure plates serve to increase the structural stability of the high-voltage energy accumulator [0008]. The supporting structure plates are formed by extrusion [0020].
Kellner discloses that by forming the supporting structure plates by extrusion, the plates can be produced inexpensively and without machining [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the power supply device, or battery, taught by modified Terauchi to have the binding bar and end plate formed by extrusion, as taught by Kellner, in order to decrease manufacturing costs and simplify production by removing the need for machining.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 13 and 14 have been considered but are not persuasive. Upon further examination of Terauchi, the embodiment shown in Fig. 6 of Terauchi discloses the claim limitations of amended claim 1. As described in the rejection for instant claims 1 and 16 above, Fig. 6 of Terauchi teaches a configuration of the restraint portion wherein the engagement block has a pair of first surface portions and a tip portion, the fitting part has a first segment portion located on the side of the plurality of battery cells with respect to the fitting part and a second segment portion located on the opposite side from the plurality of battery cells with respect to the fitting part, and the first and second segment portions each have a second surface portion facing the pair of first surface portions.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 5-12 under 35 U.S.C 103 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The Applicant states that “the Office failed to apply Ogino in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Terauchi” [Remarks, page 9]. However, it is unclear which deficiency of Terauchi Ogino failed to cure, whether it is the additional limitations of amended claim 1, or the flow path portion. Furthermore, the Applicant does not explain how Ogino fails to cure these deficiencies.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C 103 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The Applicant states that “the Office failed to apply Kellner in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Terauchi” [Remarks, page 9]. However, it is unclear which deficiency of Terauchi Ogino failed to cure, whether it is the additional limitations of amended claim 1, or the recited binding bar. Furthermore, the Applicant does not explain how Kellner fails to cure these deficiencies.
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 MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is 571-272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729