DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In view of the appeal brief filed on 05/27/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 18-19 and 23-24 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Shin (KR-102259043-B1) (see translation) is the closest prior art. Shin discloses a system for fabricating a battery pack, including a robot (200) that grips the battery with contact part (160) and an auxiliary fixing part (340) along perpendicular axis (see e.g., Shin; figs. 4-5, [0032], [0043]-[0044]).
However, Shin does not disclose or teach instant claim 1: A method for assembling a traction battery pack, comprising: assembling a plurality of cell stacks; arranging the plurality of cell stacks side-by-side to provide a cell matrix; and inserting the cell matrix into a cell-compressing opening of an enclosure tray of the traction battery pack; and prior to inserting the cell matrix into the cell-compressing opening, pressing the plurality of cell stacks together until adjacent compression fixtures of the plurality of cell stacks contact one another. Particularly, Shin at least does not disclose or teach pressing the plurality of cell stacks together until adjacent compression fixtures of the plurality of cell stacks contact one another.
Therefore, claim 1 is allowed. Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 23-24 are allowed for at least depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Shin (KR-102259043-B1) (see translation) is the closest prior art. Shin discloses a system for fabricating a battery pack, including a robot (200) that grips the battery with contact part (160) and an auxiliary fixing part (340) along perpendicular axis (see e.g., Shin; figs. 4-5, [0032], [0043]-[0044]).
However, Shin does not disclose or teach instant claim 14: A method for assembling a traction battery pack, comprising: applying a first compressive force along a cell stack axis of each cell stack of a plurality of cell stacks; simultaneously with applying the first compressive force, applying a second compressive force at each opposing side of a cell matrix formed by the plurality of cell stacks, the second compressive force applied in a direction that is transverse to the first compressive force to compress the plurality of cell stacks together to form the cell matrix; and using a top-down approach, inserting a the cell matrix of a cell-to-pack battery system into a cell-compressing opening of an enclosure tray of the traction battery pack.
Therefore, claim 14 is allowed. Claims 18-19 are allowed for at least depending on claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farha (US-20160072107-A1), and in further view of Schoenherr (US-20170110696-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Farha discloses a method for assembling a traction battery pack, comprising: arranging a plurality of cell stacks side-by-side to provide a cell matrix (see e.g., Farha; figs. 1-3, [0025], regarding assembling cells together and spacers into arrays, and then connecting arrays together); and inserting the cell matrix as a single unit into an opening of an enclosure tray of the traction battery pack (see e.g., Farha; [0028], regarding inserting connected plurality of arrays into tray).
Farha does not explicitly discloses that the opening is cell-compressing. However, Schoenherr discloses a battery pack wherein the opening is a cell-compressing opening (see e.g., Schoenherr; [0002], [0040] figs. 1, 9, regarding force generating assembly 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly opening disclosed by Farha to comprise of a force generating assembly as disclosed Schoenherr in order to provide weld-free electrical connections (see e.g., Schoenherr; [0002]).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farha (US-20160072107-A1) and Schoenherr (US-20170110696-A1), and further in view of Shin (KR-102259043-B1) (see translation).
Regarding claim 21, modified Farha teaches the method as recited in claim 20. As above regarding claim 20, Farha provides that the cell matrix is formed before inserting into the battery pack opening.
Farha does not explicitly disclose wherein arranging the plurality of cell stacks side-by-side to provide the cell matrix includes: applying a first compressive force along a cell stack axis of each cell stack of the plurality of cell stacks; and applying a second compressive force at each opposing side of the cell matrix and in a direction that is transverse to the first compressive force to compress the plurality of cell stacks together. However, Shin discloses a method for assembling a traction battery pack (see e.g., Shin; [0007]), comprising: applying a first compressive force along a cell stack axis of each cell stack of a plurality of cell stacks (see e.g., Shin; figs. 1, [0045]-[0047], regarding battery assembly jig gripping battery packs which are shown as arrays of cells and pressurizing, figs. 4-5, [0032], regarding fixed contact part 160 of the jig which grips the battery packs with pressure for the purpose of welding); and applying a second compressive force at each opposing side of the cells and in a direction that is transverse to the first compressive force to compress the cell together (see e.g., Shin; figs. 2, 4, [0043], regarding auxiliary fixing part 340, which is mislabeled as 330 in fig. 4, wherein the auxiliary fixing part presses both sides of the battery to restrict movement). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed by Farha by providing a first compressive force and a second compressive force transverse to the first compressive force as disclosed by Shin to provide the cell matrix in Farha in order to improve loading time and reduce failure (see e.g., Shin; [0005]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Farha teaches the method as recited in claim 21. Farha does not explicitly disclose wherein applying the second compressive force includes: moving a first platen and a second platen of a cell matrix joiner assembly toward one another along a joiner axis, wherein the joiner axis is transverse to the cell stack axis. However, in the same modification above regarding claim 21, Shin discloses that the second compressive force presses both sides of the battery assembly to restrict movement which has a first and second platen, the compression direction being transverse to the cell stack axis (see e.g., Shin; [0043], figs. 2, 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Farha by having the joiner assembly with a first and second platen compress along a joiner axis that is transverse to the cell stack axis as disclosed by Shin in order to improve loading time and reduce failure (see e.g., Shin; [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
