DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on October 20, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-29 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks filed on October 20, 2025, with respect to the rejection of the limitation in previous claim 9 (now present in amended claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection of record has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below in view of US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101), and further in view of US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253).
Regarding claim 1, Sakurai ‘374 teaches a cell (module 5 having series-connected unit cells covered with a case member; [0072]), comprising a housing (sheet type case member 36; [0073]; & fig. 12) and at least one electrode core assembly array encapsulated in the housing (series-connected unit cells; [0072] & Fig. 6), wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
1383
1346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the at least one electrode core assembly array comprises N rows and M columns of electrode core assemblies (see Fig. 6 with rows and columns of series-connected unit cells), and each of the electrode core assemblies comprise an encapsulation film and at least one electrode core encapsulated in the encapsulation film (a flat can installed type accumulator cell 2 produced by enclosing an electrolytic layer and layers of electrodes in a can as an example of the flat accumulator accumulating electric energy; [0057] & Fig. 5); and
an air pressure between the housing and the encapsulation film is lower than air pressure outside the housing (when the air inside of the sealing structure using the case member 36 is removed, the air pressure between the sealing structure and the cells 1 would be less than the air pressure outside of the housing; [0074]).
PNG
media_image2.png
1551
1851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sakurai ‘374 discloses a plurality of series-connected unit cells in a string, wherein there are three rows of three cells 1 in each row, as shown in the vertical direction of Fig. 6, and three columns of three cells 1 in each column, as shown in the horizontal direction of Fig. 6. The series-connected unit cells 1 are connected together to a form a string, however, Sakurai ‘374 does not disclose two strings connected together in series inside of the case 36.
Nakai ‘101 discloses a conceptual view illustrating the electrical connection between battery modules in a battery pack ([0036]). The electrical connection shown in Fig. 2 corresponds to the electrical connection shown in Fig. 4 of the present invention. Inter-module bus bars 410, 420, and 430 are used for connecting adjacent battery modules in the battery pack 10, wherein battery modules in columns and rows are connected to each to form two strings that are connected together ([0047]). The example shown in Fig. 2 allows for adjacent battery modules to be disposed closer to each ([0047]). The electrical in Nakai ‘101 connects adjacent battery modules together, however, it is the examiner’s position that the electrical connection contemplated in Naki ‘101 could be applied to the serial connection of the cells in Sakurai ‘374 to form two strings of serially connected cells that are connected together to arrive at the claimed invention.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Therefore, Sakurai ‘374 renders obvious the claimed limitations of the electrode core assemblies of a row are arranged in a length direction of the cell, and each of the N rows comprise M electrode core assemblies; and electrode core assemblies in a column are arranged along a thickness direction or a height direction of the cell, and each of the M columns comprises N electrode core assemblies;
the N electrode core assemblies in each column are connected in series to form an electrode core assembly string;
the M electrode core assembly strings are connected in series;
M and N are integers greater than 1.
Sakurai ‘374 does not disclose that an air pressure within the encapsulation film is lower than the air pressure between the housing and the encapsulation film.
Kumeuchi ‘253 discloses a lithium secondary battery 1 with a battery element 3 having a laminated structure in which a positive electrode sheet 10 and a negative electrode sheet 20 are laminated with a separator 30 sandwiched therebetween is sealed with a filmy packaging material 5 ([0024]). The sealing is carried out in a reduced-pressure state after an electrolyte solution has been injected in the inside ([0026]). By a pressure difference due to the reduced-pressure between the inside and the outside, the filmy packaging material 5 presses the battery element 3 in which the positive electrode sheets 10 and the negative electrode sheets 20 are laminate ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the flat laminate cells 1 of Sakurai ‘374 to have an air pressure within the interior that is lower than the air pressure between the housing and the encapsulation film, as suggested by Kumeuchi ‘253, because the sealing of the laminate cells may be carried out in a reduced-pressure state to press and seal the battery element within the packaging material of the flat laminate cells 1 contained within the case member 36.
Regarding claim 2, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, wherein
a length of each of the electrode core assemblies extends along the length direction of the cell (as shown in Fig. 6 of Sakurai ‘374, a length of each cell extends in the vertical direction, corresponding to the length direction);
each of the electrode core assemblies comprise a first electrode lead-out member and a second electrode lead-out member respectively extending from two ends of a corresponding electrode core assembly along a length direction and configured to lead out a current (the accumulator cell 1 has two metal electrode terminals 1c and 1d extending from the ends of the sealing portion 1b in the vertical direction, corresponding to the length direction; [0054], Fig. 2, & Fig. 6 of Sakurai ‘374); and
a first electrode lead-out member of a first electrode core assembly of two adjacent electrode core assemblies in each column is electrically connected to a second electrode lead-out member of a second electrode core assembly of the two adjacent electrode core assemblies (the unit cells are connected in series via adjacent electrode terminals 1c and 1d; [0059] & Fig. 6 of Sakurai ‘374).
Regarding claim 3, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 2, wherein
the first electrode lead-out member of the first electrode core assembly of the two adjacent electrode core assemblies and the second electrode lead-out member of the second electrode core assembly of the two adjacent electrode core assemblies are arrange don a same side of a column (electrode terminals 1c and 1d may be provided at sides opposing each other or at the same side; [0056] of Sakurai ‘374; further, see the electrical connection of Fig. 2 in Nakai ‘101, wherein the positive lead-out member of battery module 1 and the negative lead-out member of battery module 16 are both on a same side of a column, the far left column, corresponding to Fig. 4 of the present invention);
Regarding claim 4, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, wherein
an electrode core assembly at a tail end of a first electrode core assembly string of two adjacent electrode core assembly strings is electrically connected to an electrode core assembly at a tail end of a second electrode core assembly string of the two adjacent electrode core assembly strings (see the electrical connection of Fig. 2 in Nakai ‘101, wherein the positive lead-out member of battery module 9 and the negative lead-out member of battery module 8 at a tail end of each respective string are electrically connected, corresponding to Fig. 4 of the present invention).
Regarding claim 5, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 4, wherein
a length of each of the electrode core assemblies extends along the length direction of the cell (as shown in Fig. 6 of Sakurai ‘374, a length of each cell extends in the vertical direction, corresponding to the length direction);
each of the electrode core assemblies comprises a first electrode lead-out member and a second electrode lead-out member respectively extending from two ends of a corresponding electrode core assembly along the length direction and configured to lead out a current (the accumulator cell 1 has two metal electrode terminals 1c and 1d extending from the ends of the sealing portion 1b in the vertical direction, corresponding to the length direction; [0054], Fig. 2, & Fig. 6 of Sakurai ‘374); and
a first electrode lead-out member of the electrode core assembly at the tail end of the first electrode core assembly string of the two adjacent electrode core assembly strings is adjacent to a second electrode lead-out member of the electrode core assembly at the tail end of the second electrode core assembly string of the two adjacent electrode core assembly strings (see the electrical connection of Fig. 2 in Nakai ‘101, wherein the positive lead-out member of battery module 9 and the negative lead-out member of battery module 8 at a tail end of each respective string are electrically connected, corresponding to Fig. 4 of the present invention).
Regarding claim 6, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 2, wherein
the N electrode core assemblies are arranged along the thickness direction of the cell (a plurality of cells 1 are arranged in the horizontal direction, corresponding to the thickness direction of the module 5, as shown in Fig. 6 of Sakurai ‘374);
the at least one electrode core assembly array comprises a first main electrode and a second main electrode configured to lead out a main current (the module terminals 7a and 7b are provided at the electrode terminals 1c and 1d at the ends; [0059] & Fig. 6); and
the first main electrode and the second main electrode respectively extend from two opposite corners of the at least one electrode core assembly array (the module terminals 7a and 7b extend from opposite sides of the module 5; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one electrode core assembly array comprises a plurality of electrode core assembly arrays (the electrical connection shown in Fig. 2 of Nakai ‘101, corresponding to the electrical connection shown in Fig. 4 of the present invention, wherein battery modules in columns and rows are connected to each to form two strings that are connected together ([0047]).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that a length of the cell ranges from 44 mm to 2500 mm; and a thickness of the cell ranges from 13 mm to 75 mm, and a thickness of the housing ranges from 0.05 mm to 1 mm.
However, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Sakurai ‘374 teaches a battery module (a battery module 100; [0040] of Nakai ‘101), comprising the cell according to claim 1, a battery pack, comprising a cell array (a battery pack 10 comprising a plurality of battery modules 100A, 100B; [0040] of Nakai ‘101), wherein the cell array comprises a plurality of cells (the plurality of battery modules 100A, 100B are equipped with a plurality of unit cells 110 that are formed into a flat shape and stacked in the thickness direction; [0040] of Nakai ‘101) comprising the cell according to claim 1.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101) and US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253), and further in view of US 20190355940 A1 (Satou ‘940).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the air pressure between the housing and the encapsulation film is P1, and P1 ranges from -100kPa to -5kPa, wherein an air pressure within the encapsulation film is P2, and P1/P2 ranges from 0.05 to 0.85.
Satou ‘940 discloses a battery pack 100 having a main body unit 110 ([0033]). The main body unit 110 includes a cell case made of a rigid material, a first lid member 170 made of a flexible material, and a first cover plate 176 ([0034]). The “cell case 120 made of a rigid material” means that the cell case 120 is rigid and not easily deformed when external force is applied thereto, thereby sufficiently protecting a laminated body 140 arranged therein ([0034]). The “first lid member 170 made of a flexible material” means that the first lid member 170 has flexibility to an extent that a differential pressure produced between an external pressure and an internal pressure of the cell case 120 by decompressing the inside of the cell case 120 (decreasing the internal pressure of the cell case 120 lower than the external pressure (at least atmospheric pressure)) may deform the first lid member 170 ([0034]). In order to reduce internal resistance among the unit cells of a laminated body, a proper pressing pressure (tightening force) must be applied to the laminated body ([0004]). The present invention has been made to provide a battery pack capable of, even if an electrode area is large, easily applying a proper pressing pressure to a laminated body in which unit cells are laminated one on another ([0005]).
The inside of the lower case is decompressed up to -90 kPa Gauge ([0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that a the air pressure between the housing and the encapsulation film is P1, and P1 ranges from -100kPa to -5kPa, wherein an air pressure within the encapsulation film is P2, and P1/P2 ranges from 0.05 to 0.85, to apply a proper pressing pressure to a laminated body in order to reduce internal resistance amount the unit cells of a laminated body, as suggested by Satou ‘940, in the cell, as taught by Sakurai ‘374.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, wherein the cell is provided with two opposing first surfaces along the thickness direction of the cell (as shown in Fig. 13 of Sakurai ‘374, the sheet type case member 36 may be two sheet members 37 a and 37 b; [0073]), but does not disclose that at least one of the first surfaces is recessed toward an inside of the housing, wherein the two first surfaces are recessed toward the inside of the housing, to clamp the at least one electrode core assembly array.
Satou ‘940 discloses a battery pack 100 having a main body unit 110 ([0033]). The main body unit 110 includes a cell case made of a rigid material, a first lid member 170 made of a flexible material, and a first cover plate 176 ([0034]). The “cell case 120 made of a rigid material” means that the cell case 120 is rigid and not easily deformed when external force is applied thereto, thereby sufficiently protecting a laminated body 140 arranged therein ([0034]). The “first lid member 170 made of a flexible material” means that the first lid member 170 has flexibility to an extent that a differential pressure produced between an external pressure and an internal pressure of the cell case 120 by decompressing the inside of the cell case 120 (decreasing the internal pressure of the cell case 120 lower than the external pressure (at least atmospheric pressure)) may deform the first lid member 170 ([0034]). In order to reduce internal resistance among the unit cells of a laminated body, a proper pressing pressure (tightening force) must be applied to the laminated body ([0004]). The present invention has been made to provide a battery pack capable of, even if an electrode area is large, easily applying a proper pressing pressure to a laminated body in which unit cells are laminated one on another ([0005]).
The top face (first face) 142 of the laminated body 140, and the bottom face (second face) 144 of the laminated body 140 are both recessed toward an inside of the laminated body 140 ([0095] & Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that at least one of the first surfaces is recessed toward an inside of the housing, wherein the two first surfaces are recessed toward the inside of the housing, to clamp the at least one electrode core assembly array, to apply a proper pressing pressure to a laminated body in order to reduce internal resistance amount the unit cells of a laminated body, as suggested by Satou ‘940, of the flat laminate cells in the cell, as taught by Sakurai ‘374.
Claims 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101) and US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253), and further in view of US 20180175451 A1 (Inoue ‘451) and US 20170198103 A1 (Lee ‘103).
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 16, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the encapsulation film comprises a non-metallic outer film and a non-metallic inner film laminated together, the inner film is arranged between an electrode core and the outer film; a melting point of the outer film is higher than a melting point of the inner film; and a difference between the melting point of the outer film and the melting point of the inner film ranges from 30°C to 80°C, wherein the outer film comprises one or more of polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, and polypropylene; and the inner film comprises one or more of polypropylene, polyethylene, and polyethylene terephthalate, wherein the outer film is bonded to the inner film by a binder, and the binder is a polyolefin binder.
Inoue ‘451 discloses a film package film pack 10 that may be composed of two films 10-1 and 10-2 ([0068]). As the film of the outer package, a laminate film having a surface layer, a metal layer, and an inner layer can be used. It may be those using aluminum for a metal layer, and nylon (registered trademark) or polyethylene terephthalate for an outer surface layer, and a polyolefin resin such as polyethylene or polypropylene for an inner surface layer. The inner surface layer may be polyethylene having a melting point of 95 to 140° C. or polypropylene having a melting point of 160 to 165° C ([0067]).
Lee ‘103 discloses that “adhesive layer” and “tie layer” mean a layer or material placed on one or more substrates to promote the adhesive of that substrate to another layer. Adhesive layers can be positioned between two layers of a multilayer structure to maintain the two layers in position relative to each other and prevent delamination ([0049]). For example, the adhesive may be made from or contain a polyolefin-based composition ([0149]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that the encapsulation film comprises a non-metallic outer film and a non-metallic inner film laminated together, the inner film is arranged between an electrode core and the outer film; a melting point of the outer film is higher than a melting point of the inner film; and a difference between the melting point of the outer film and the melting point of the inner film ranges from 30°C to 80°C, wherein the outer film comprises one or more of polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, and polypropylene; and the inner film comprises one or more of polypropylene, polyethylene, and polyethylene terephthalate, wherein the outer film is bonded to the inner film by a binder, and the binder is a polyolefin binder, to provide a highly reliable film package battery which is excellent in heat resistant safety, as suggested by Inoue ‘451 and Lee ‘103, in the cell, as taught by Sakurai ‘374.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101) and US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253), and further in view of US 20190088938 A1 (Zheng ‘938)
Regarding claim 17, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the encapsulation film is an aluminum-plastic compound film.
Zheng ‘938 discloses that in a lithium ion battery, the positive electrode material, the separator, the negative electrode material, and the like are sequentially wound or stacked in an electrode assembly, and then packaged, for example, in an aluminum plastic film for encapsulation, and injected with an electrolyte for packaging ([0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that the encapsulation film is an aluminum-plastic compound film, as suggested by Zheng ‘938, in the cell, as taught by Sakurai ‘374.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101) and US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253), and further in view of US 20040201366 A1 (Kimoto ‘366).
Regarding claim 18, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the housing is provided with an exhaust hole, and a sealing member arranged inside the exhaust hole.
Kimoto ‘366 discloses a cell 1 constructed of a group of electrode plates 7 housed in a battery housing 2 along with an electrolyte, the opening in the battery housing 2 is closed off with a cover 6 provided with a safety vent 5, and a positive electrode terminal 3, which is connected to leads taken from the positive electrode plates of the group of electrode plates 7, and a negative electrode terminal 4, which is connected to leads 9 taken from the negative electrode plates, are attached to the cover 6 ([0004] & Fig. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that the housing is provided with an exhaust hole, and a sealing member arranged inside the exhaust hole, as suggested by Kimoto ‘366, in the battery pack, as taught by Sakurai ‘374.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claims 22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101) and US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253), and further in view of US 20060246348 A1 (Hamada ‘348).
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 25, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the battery pack according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of cells are arranged along the thickness direction of the cell (a plurality of unit cells 110 that are formed into a flat shape and stacked in the thickness direction; [0040] of Nakai ‘101); but does not disclose that a gap is provided between two adjacent cells, and a ratio of the gap to a thickness of the cell ranges from 0.001 to 0.15, wherein the cell is provided with two opposing first surfaces along the thickness direction of the cell, the gap between the two adjacent cells comprises a second gap, and the second gap is a minimum distance between two first surfaces of the two adjacent cells facing each other, wherein the second gap before use of the cell is larger than the second gap after the use of the cell.
Hamada ‘348 discloses a battery pack 1 with gaps 8 formed between each two cells 5, wherein expansion of the cases due to internal pressure of the cells or expansion of the elements for electromotive force is restrained by tension of the connecting members extending through the gaps at both ends of the battery modules and between two given cells in the middle of the battery module ([0006] & [0046]). A connection terminal for electrically connecting the cells with each other may be protruded on at least one of opposing side faces of the cells such as to form gaps between the opposing side faces of the cells that make of the battery module ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a gap is provided between two adjacent cells, and a ratio of the gap to a thickness of the cell ranges from 0.001 to 0.15, wherein the cell is provided with two opposing first surfaces along the thickness direction of the cell, the gap between the two adjacent cells comprises a second gap, and the second gap is a minimum distance between two first surfaces of the two adjacent cells facing each other, wherein the second gap before use of the cell is larger than the second gap after the use of the cell, to restrain expansion of the cells, as suggested by Hamada ‘348, in the battery pack, as taught by Sakurai ‘374.
Further, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101), US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253), and US 20060246348 A1 (Hamada ‘348), and further in view of US 20040201366 A1 (Kimoto ‘366).
Regarding claim 23, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the battery pack according to claim 22, wherein the gap between the two adjacent cells comprises a first gap d1, the first gap is a minimum distance between the two cover plates of the two adjacent cells along the thickness direction of the cell, and a ratio of the first gap d1 to the thickness of the cell ranges from 0.005 to 0.1 (gaps 8 formed between each two cells 5, wherein expansion of the cases due to internal pressure of the cells or expansion of the elements for electromotive force is restrained by tension of the connecting members extending through the gaps at both ends of the battery modules and between two given cells in the middle of the battery module; [0006] & [0046] of Hamada ‘348; further, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device), but does not disclose that the housing comprises a housing body with an opening and a cover plate connected to the opening in a sealed manner, the cover plate and the housing body enclose a sealed accommodating cavity, and the at least one electrode assembly array is arranged in the sealed accommodating cavity.
Kimoto ‘366 discloses a cell 1 constructed of a group of electrode plates 7 housed in a battery housing 2 along with an electrolyte, the opening in the battery housing 2 is closed off with a cover 6 provided with a safety vent 5, and a positive electrode terminal 3, which is connected to leads taken from the positive electrode plates of the group of electrode plates 7, and a negative electrode terminal 4, which is connected to leads 9 taken from the negative electrode plates, are attached to the cover 6 ([0004] & Fig. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that the housing comprises a housing body with an opening and a cover plate connected to the opening in a sealed manner, the cover plate and the housing body enclose a sealed accommodating cavity, and the at least one electrode assembly array is arranged in the sealed accommodating cavity, as suggested by Kimoto ‘366, in the battery pack, as taught by Sakurai ‘374.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101), US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253), and US 20060246348 A1 (Hamada ‘348), and further in view of US 20180337378 A1 (Stephens ‘378).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the battery pack according to claim 22, but does not specifically disclose a battery pack cover and a tray, wherein the battery pack cover is connected to the tray in a sealed manner to form a battery accommodating cavity, the cell array is arranged in the battery accommodating cavity, the tray comprises a support member to form a support region on the housing, the cell is supported on the support member in the support region, wherein the tray comprises side beams, the support member comprises the side beams, and two ends of the cell along a length direction are respectively supported on the side beams.
Stephens ‘378 teaches a vehicle battery support structure or tray 10 provided for supporting and protecting battery packs or modules or the like ([0039]). So as to seal the upper opening of the interior of the battery tray 10, a cover panel 17 is provided over the battery containment areas 18 ([0047] & Fig. 3). The tray 10 includes a supporting region formed on the casing, and the supporting region is directly supported on the support member so that the cell is connected to the support member (see annotated Fig. 7). Further, side beams 30 are provided adjacent to the support members (see annotated Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image3.png
641
1389
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a battery pack cover and a tray, wherein the battery pack cover is connected to the tray in a sealed manner to form a battery accommodating cavity, the cell array is arranged in the battery accommodating cavity, the tray comprises a support member to form a support region on the housing, the cell is supported on the support member in the support region, wherein the tray comprises side beams, the support member comprises the side beams, and two ends of the cell along a length direction are respectively supported on the side beams, to provide a vehicle battery support structure for supporting and protecting battery packs or modules or the like therein, as suggested by Stephens ‘378, in the battery pack, as taught by Sakurai ‘374.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050208374 A1 (Sakurai ‘374), in view of US 20180309101 A1 (Nakai ‘101) and US 20120227253 A1 (Kumeuchi ‘253), and further in view of US 20180337378 A1 (Stephens ‘378).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Sakurai ‘374 teaches the battery pack according to claim 21, but does not specifically disclose an electric vehicle, comprising the battery pack, wherein the length direction of the cell is arranged along a length direction of a vehicle body of the electric vehicle.
Stephens ‘378 teaches a vehicle battery support structure or tray 10, 110, 210 provided for supporting and protecting battery packs or modules or the like, such as for an electric of hybrid-electric vehicle 12, 112, ([0039]). The battery tray 10 may be attached or mounted to the vehicle frame, such as at or near the lower frame or rocker rails 14 of the vehicle 12 (Fig. 1 and Fig. 8; [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide that the battery pack, as taught by Sakurai ‘374, is mounted in an electric vehicle, and the length direction of the cell is arranged along a length direction of a vehicle body of the electric vehicle, to support and protect the battery pack, as suggested by Stephens ‘378.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 10-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 36-69 of Application No. 17/792,657 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because claims 1-8 and 10-29 of the present application overlap in scope with claims 36-69 of the reference application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725