DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Güner (US Patent No. 9,172,121 to Güner et al.).
Regarding Claim 19, Güner teaches:
a cell carrier comprising a first plurality of cell retainers and a second plurality of cell retainers each retainer being configured to hold a battery cell in a form locking manner (Fig. 1, column 3)
a plurality of meandering ribs spaced apart from each other, with a first plurality of cell retainers arranged between the meandering ribs and a second plurality of cell retainers arranged opposite to the first plurality of cell retainers and separated therefrom by one of the meandering ribs (Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
404
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Güner teaches
cells in the retainers (column 3), necessarily connected by a busbar for use as a battery pack, in e.g. a vehicle (column 1 lines 9-15)
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cournoyer (US Patent No. 11,594,772 to Cournoyer et al.) in view of Hasegawa (US 2016/0359210 to Hasegawa) and Bae (US 2014/0212737 to Bae et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Cournoyer teaches:
a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells and a plurality of what can be defined as cell carrier (groups) 603a/b/c/d/e/f arranged adjacent to each other (Fig. 6, column 8)
PNG
media_image2.png
898
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
each of the cell carriers comprising a plurality of meandering ribs that are spaced apart from each other, as well as first and second pluralities of cell retainers that are arbitrarily identifiable in each cell carrier group 603 (Fig. 6)
each of the pluralities of cell retainers configured to hold the battery cells in a form locking manner in the respective cell retainers (e.g. claim 5)
wherein an identifiable plurality of cell retainers of one cell carrier 603a is arranged between meandering ribs of that cell carrier, and wherein a second plurality of cell retainers is arranged on e.g. the right side of the dark line separating 603a/603b and is formed between a meandering rib of 603a and a meandering rib of 603b (Fig. 6)
Cournoyer does not explicitly teach:
that the cell carriers are actually distinct components
The Office notes, however, that making integral what had previously been made in multiple pieces has been found to be obvious. See In re Larson, 340 F. 2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP § 2144.04 V, B [R-5]. Likewise, making separable what had previously been non-portable or unmovable has been found to be obvious. See In re Lindberg, 194 F. 2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); and MPEP § 2144.02 V, A [R-5].
In the cell-retaining art, moreover, it was known to provide modular cell retaining structures. Bae, for example, teaches a modular open-sided cell retaining architecture with meandering walls (Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image3.png
274
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hasegawa, meanwhile, teaches mid-size modular components for retaining a plurality of cells between meandering walls, with open edge-cells (Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
556
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cell groups shown in Cournoyer in modular cell retaining frame works with open edge cells, since such modular structures were known in the art, and would allow for specific cell numbers suitable for particular voltage/amperage needs. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2, Cournoyer teaches:
meandering ribs that meanderingly arrange cells in a hexagonal packing formation (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 3, Cournoyer teaches:
meandering ribs that meanderingly arrange cells in a hexagonal packing formation, including at cell group edges, between meandering ribs of neighboring cell carrier groups (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 4, Cournoyer teaches:
first and second pluralities of cell retainers meanderingly arranged opposite to each other and separated by one of the meandering ribs (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 5, Cournoyer teaches:
meandering ribs that meanderingly arrange cells in a hexagonal packing formation (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 6, Cournoyer teaches:
meandering rows that form a hexagonal arrangement (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claims 8-10, Cournoyer teaches:
cylindrical cells in cylindrical retaining through holes (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 11, Cournoyer teaches:
each of the cell retainers comprising a projection 304 (Fig. 3B)
PNG
media_image5.png
496
658
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Cournoyer teaches:
each of the cell carrier groups 603 containing an even number of cell (Fig. 6)
Regarding Claim 13, Cournoyer teaches:
a higher number than claimed
The number of cells was freely variable in series/parallel configurations to meet a specific need. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It would have been obvious to provide any number of cell retainers, including 10, 14, or 18.
Regarding Claim 14, Cournoyer teaches:
busbars connecting cells (column 4)
Regarding Claim 15, Cournoyer teaches:
adhesive connecting cells to retainers (column3, line 9)
Regarding Claims 16-18, Cournoyer teaches:
a plurality of cell carrier groups, for use in a vehicle (Figs., column 6 line 26)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cournoyer (US Patent No. 11,594,772 to Cournoyer et al.) in view of Hasegawa (US 2016/0359210 to Hasegawa) and Bae (US 2014/0212737 to Bae et al.), in further of Güner (US Patent No. 9,172,121 to Güner et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Cournoyer does not explicitly teach:
stacking modules on top of each other
Güner, however, teaches stacking modules formed of meandering walls (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
458
640
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to make the modules of Cournoyer stackable in order to deal with spatial constraints: e.g. desiring a certain number of batteries but being limited in the x-y design space for a particular application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723