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 .
Drawings
Objections to the drawings are withdrawn, as claim 13 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 20 Feb 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the newly-amended feature of “wherein the battery modules are sequentially positioned in both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction” in claim 12 is not disclosed or taught by the prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that this claimed feature is taught by Yamada (US 2016/0190526), which teaches battery modules sequentially positioned in a vertical direction as set forth in detail in the claim rejections below.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2018/0269443) in view of Waterford et al. (US 2015/0140377).
As to claim 12, Takahashi et al. discloses a battery block comprising:
battery modules (see e.g. battery modules 3, [0023] and Fig. 1) that each comprise:
cell holders (see e.g. end plates 32 and side plates 33 contain the cells of battery module 3 and thereby read on cell holders, [0024] and Figs. 1-2) each having one or more connecting sockets (see e.g. second insertion holes 35, which read on connecting sockets installed on end plate 32/side plate 33, which read on cell holders, [0026] and Figs. 5-6); and cells in the cell holders (see e.g. multiple cells are contained within endplates 32 and side plates 33, [0023]),
the battery modules are sequentially positioned in both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (see e.g. Fig. 2, battery modules 3 are sequentially positioned along the x and y axes, which read on horizontal and vertical directions, respectively);
connector keys (see e.g. connection members 5, [0035] and Fig. 6) each having annuli (see e.g. first insertion holes, 52, [0035] and Fig. 6) positioned in-line with the one or more connecting sockets (see e.g. second insertion holes, 35, [0035] and Fig. 6) in a respective one of the cell holders of the sequentially positioned battery modules (see e.g. Fig. 6, holes 52 are positioned in-line with holes 35 in end plate 32), wherein the connector keys hold the battery modules adjacent to each other (see e.g. [0026]-[0027] and Fig. 6, connection members 5, which read on connector keys, hold adjacent battery modules 3); and
attaching components (see e.g. bolts 6, [0026], Fig. 1) that are removably engaged in the annuli of the connector keys (see e.g. first insertion holes 52 of connection members 5, [0035] and Fig. 6), wherein the attaching components stack the battery modules in at least one of the horizontal direction and the vertical direction (see e.g. Fig. 1, showing battery modules 3 stacked along the x axis, which reads on a horizontal direction).
Takahashi et al. discloses battery cells (see e.g. [0026]), but does not explicitly state that the cells are connected in at least one of a series and a parallel connection.
Waterford et al., also working in the field of battery design, teaches that the voltage of a battery can be increased by connecting the cells of the battery in series (see e.g. Waterford et al.: [0006]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Takahashi et al. by connecting the cells in series. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to increase the voltage output of the cells, as taught by Waterford et al..
As to claim 14, Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. teaches the battery block of claim 12, wherein each of the cell holders comprises a rectangular planar surface surrounded by raised walls (see e.g. end plates 32 and side plates 33 read on cell holders as set forth above and can reasonably be said to have a base that is a rectangular planar surface and is surrounded by raised walls, Takahashi et al.: Figs. 1-2).
As to claim 15, Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. teaches the battery block of claim 14, wherein each of the one or more connecting sockets (see e.g. second insertion holes, 35, Takahashi et al.: [0035] and Fig. 6) is positioned on the raised walls of a respective one of the cell holders (see e.g. Takahashi et al.: Fig. 6, showing second insertion holes, 35 positioned on raised wall of end plate 32).
As to claim 19, Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. teaches the battery block of claim 14, wherein cells in each of the battery modules are electrically insulated from each other by the raised walls of the cell holders of each of the battery modules (see e.g. Takahashi et al.: [0023] and Figs. 1-2, cells within battery module 3 are separated from cells in a neighboring module by raised walls 32/33. While Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. does not explicitly state that these raised wall are insulating, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the walls would need to be insulating in order to prevent the cells from coming into electrical contact with each other and short-circuiting.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2018/0269443) in view of Waterford et al. (US 2015/0140377) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kwag et al. (US 2011/0039142).
As to claim 16, Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. teaches the battery block of claim 14, wherein the battery modules include a first battery module and a second battery module (see e.g. Takahashi et al.: Fig. 1, showing a plurality of battery modules 3, any of which can be considered to be first and second battery modules). Each of Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al.’s battery modules comprises a cell holder (see e.g. end plates 32 and side plates 33 contain the cells of battery module 3 and thereby read on cell holders, Takahashi et al.: [0024] and Figs. 1-2), and each of the one or more connecting sockets (see e.g. second insertion holes, 35, Takahashi et al.: [0035] and Fig. 6) is provided in at the of the cell holder of each of the first battery module and the second battery module (see e.g. Takahashi et al.: Fig. 6, showing second insertion holes, 35 positioned on the top of raised wall of end plate 32 of battery module 3).
Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al.’s cell holder has a unitary piece design, and does not comprise a top cell holder and a bottom cell holder.
Kwag et al., also working in the field of battery module design, teaches a battery module (see e.g. holder case 100, [0027] and Fig. 1) that comprises a top cell holder and a bottom cell holder that contain a plurality of battery cells (see e.g. first holder case 100a and second holder case 100b, which contain batteries 150, Kwag et al.: [0027], Fig. 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery block of Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. by adopting the battery case design taught by Kwag et al., wherein the battery module comprises a top cell holder and a bottom cell holder. Said artisan would have found such a modification to be obvious because Kwag et al.’s battery case design is a functionally equivalent structure taught in the art that performs the same function of containing battery cells. Further, the use of Kwag et al.’s battery case design would fail to yield any new benefit that would not have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 17, Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. and Kwag et al. teaches the battery block of claim 16, wherein when stacking the battery modules vertically, one of the connector keys is positioned in-line with one of the one or more connecting sockets (see e.g. Takahashi et al. : Fig. 6 shows connector keys 5 that are positioned in-line with connecting sockets 35).
Fig. 6 of Takahashi et al. shows that when stacking the battery modules horizontally, the connector socket (see e.g. 35, Takahashi et al. : Fig. 6) of one module is placed on the right portion of the raised wall (see e.g. end plate 32, Takahashi et al. : Fig. 6) and the connector socket of the other modules is placed on the left portion of the raised wall. The proposed combination of Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. and Kwag et al. as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above would orient this arrangement 90° vertically such that one or more of the connector sockets is in a raised wall of the bottom cell holder of the first battery and with one of the one or more connecting sockets in a raised wall of the top cell holder of the second battery module in order to connect the modules vertically.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2018/0269443) in view of Waterford et al. (US 2015/0140377) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gurtner et al. (US 2018/0238970).
As to claim 20, Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. teaches the battery block of claim 12, but does not disclose battery modules that each comprise a battery management system comprising a heat sink that monitors and maintains health of the plurality of cells held in the cell holders.
Gurtner et al. , also working in the field of battery systems, teaches a battery management system (see e.g. BMS, 11: [0016]) associated with a battery that comprises a heat sink (see e.g. 30, Gurtner et al. : [0003], [0033], Figs. 3 and 6). Gurtner et al. further teaches that such a BMS is used to monitor the amount of current flowing into the battery to determine the charge level or charge state of the battery, and thereby can reasonably be said to monitor and maintain the health of the battery (Gurtner et al. : [0003]-[0004]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide each of the battery modules in the battery block of Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. with a BMS comprising a heat sink that monitors and maintains the health of the battery as taught by Gurtner et al. . Said artisan would have been motivated to add Gurtner et al. ’s BMS in order to be able to monitor the amount of current flowing into the battery to determine the charge level or charge state of the battery, as taught by Gurtner et al. .
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2018/0269443) in view of Waterford et al. (US 2015/0140377) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kakuchi et al. (US 2009/0239137).
As to claim 21, Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. teaches the battery block of claim 12, including attaching components (see e.g. bolts 6, Takahashi et al. : [0026], Fig. 1) that removably engage the annuli of a connector key (see e.g. 5 of Takahashi et al. ) and are thereby used as fastening members.
Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. does not teach attaching components wherein the attaching components include an assemblage of: a screw that removably engages in one of the annuli of each of the connector keys
Kakuchi et al. , also working on the general problem of fastening battery components, teaches attaching components comprising an assemblage of a screw (see e.g. 80, Kakuchi et al. : [0057], Fig. 3), that removably engages with an annulus (see e.g. opening 72H, Kakuchi et al. : [0057] and Fig. 3) with spring washer (see e.g. 81, Kakuchi et al. : [0057] and Fig. 3) and a plain washer (see e.g. flat washer 82, Kakuchi et al. : [0057] and Fig. 3) to fasten two components together.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the attaching components of Takahashi et al. in view of Waterford et al. with the assemblage of a screw that removably engages an annulus along with a spring washer, and a plain washer taught by Kakuchi et al. , because Kakuchi et al. that this is an equivalent structure that performs the same intended function of fastening two components together.
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights