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 .
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.
Claims 20, 22-23, and 25 are 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 20, 22 and 23 are rejected as being dependent upon a cancelled claim. Claim 20 is examined as dependent upon claim 14, as claim 14 includes the first reference to a claimed “base bottom plate.” Claims 22 and 23 are examined as dependent upon claim 20, as claim 20 includes the first reference to a claimed “plurality of gluing slots.” Correction is required to clarify how the applicant intended to amend the dependency of claims 20, 22 and 23.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the glue injection hole" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 is dependent on claim 1, which does not recite a limitation directed to a glue injection hole. The first recitation of “a glue injection hole” is in claim 24. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 25 as reading “a glue injection hole.” Alternatively, applicant can amend claim 25 to depend on claim 24 to establish antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (CN 109119556 A, published 1 Jan 2019, paragraphs cited from the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lu et al. discloses a battery cell module (Fig. 8), comprising a plurality of battery cell assemblies, wherein each of the battery cell assemblies comprises a battery cell (1), an end cover (100), and a base (100, [0077]; see Fig. 8, where a cell splicing module is placed at each end of the cells), a first end of the battery cell is connected to the end cover, and a second end of the battery cell is connected to the base ([0092] describes each end of the battery cell being inserted into a corresponding cell splicing module 100); end covers of adjacent ones of the battery cell assemblies are detachably connected to each other, and bases of the adjacent ones of the battery cell assemblies are detachably connected to each other ([0077] connected by snap fit, with flexible and variable outer contour). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that the end covers and the bases (100) are provided with clamping parts (slots 30 and protrusions 40), adjacent two of the end covers are clamped through the clamping parts, and adjacent two of the bases are clamped through the clamping parts ([0077]; see Fig. 7a-7c, 10). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that the end covers and the bases (100) are prismatic structures ([0079] teaches a polygonal shape, such as hexagonal), and each of side walls of the end covers and side walls of the bases (peripheral walls 20, including first sidewalls 21 and second sidewalls 22) is provided with one of the clamping parts (slots 30 are provided on first sidewall 21, protrusions 40 are provided on second sidewall 40, [0074-0076]; see Fig. 9). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that each of the end covers and the bases (100) comprises: a bottom plate (sheet-shaped body 10), the bottom plate (10) being a regular polygonal plate (hexagon, [0072]); and a plurality of side plates (peripheral walls 20), wherein each of side edges of the bottom plate (10) is connected to one of the side plates (20; see Fig. 9), and each of the side plates (20) is provided with one of the clamping parts (slots 30 are provided on first sidewall 21, protrusions 40 are provided on second sidewall 40, [0074-0076]; Fig. 9). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that the quantity of the plurality of side plates is an even number (six total side plates, [0074]), among two opposite ones of the side plates (arranged alternately, such that first sidewalls 21 are opposite second sidewalls 22, [0074]; see Fig. 4, this feature is present in Fig. 9 but not depicted), a first one of the side plates (second sidewall 22) is provided with a clamping block (protrusion 40) as the clamping part, and a second one of the side plates (first side wall 21) is provided with a clamping slot (slot 30) as the clamping part ([0075-0076]; Fig. 9). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that a width of the clamping block (protrusion 40) is gradually decreased (width d2 of the wingspan 42 is greater than the width d1 of the inner recess/inward portion 41) along a radial direction of the battery cell (1) towards inside of one of the side plates (second sidewall 22) where the clamping block (40) is located, [0082-0084]; see Fig. 4). Lu further teaches that the clamping slot (30) and the clamping block (40) have matching contours ([0077]; see Fig. 10). Thus, as the width of the clamping block (40) gradually decreases along the radial direction towards inside one the of side plates, a width of the clamping slot (30) is gradually increased correspondingly (see Figs. 4, 10). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that the battery cells are cylindrical ([0093]); and each of the end covers and the bases (100) is provided with an installation slot (columnar space, [0073]), the plurality of side plates (peripheral walls 20) and the bottom plate (10) enclose to define the installation slot (columnar space, Figs. 4, 9); each of ends of the battery cells is disposed in a corresponding one of installation slots (columnar space, [0073]), a side surface (inner surface of sidewalls) of the installation slot (columnar space) facing the battery cell is an arc-shaped surface matched with an outer wall of the battery cell ([0093]), and a side surface of the installation slot away from the battery cell (outer surface of sidewalls) is a plane (see Figs. 9-10). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that each of middle portions of the side plates (20) of the end cover (100) and middle portions of the side plates (20) of the base (100) can provided with a notch (see Fig. 9), wherein the clamping parts (slot 30, protrusion 40) may not penetrate the bottom plate (10), and therefore a notch is formed in the side plates (20) a predetermine distance (d0) away from the bottom plate ([0098]; see Fig. 9). Lu further teaches that an opening of the notch faces away from the bottom plate (10) at each respective end of the battery cell (1, see Fig. 8), and thus an opening of the notch on the end cover (100) faces the base (100 at the corresponding opposite end), and an opening of the notch on the base (100) faces the end cover (100 at the corresponding opposite end). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 26, Lu et al. discloses a battery system (such as a battery system for a vehicle [0078]), comprising a battery cell module (Fig. 8), comprising a plurality of battery cell assemblies, wherein each of the battery cell assemblies comprises a battery cell (1), an end cover (100), and a base (100, [0077]; see Fig. 8, where a cell splicing module is placed at each end of the cells), a first end of the battery cell is connected to the end cover, and a second end of the battery cell is connected to the base ([0092] describes each end of the battery cell being inserted into a corresponding cell splicing module 100); end covers of adjacent ones of the battery cell assemblies are detachably connected to each other, and bases of the adjacent ones of the battery cell assemblies are detachably connected to each other ([0077] connected by snap fit, with flexible and variable outer contour). Therefore, Lu meets the limitations of claim 26.
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.
Claims 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 109119556 A, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) in view of Wood et al. (US 20090111015 A1, published 30 April 2009).
Regarding claim 10, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that the end cover (100) is sleeved at the first end of the battery cell (1), a first via hole (end opening 11) is defined on the end cover (100), and an electrode column of the battery cell (1) is extended out of the end cover from the first via hole (11, [0095] teaches that the end opening 11 is used to expose the positive and negative polarity markings of the cell). Lu does not disclose a busbar.
Wood et al. discloses a modular battery system (10) comprising battery cells (20) and interconnecting sleeves (30) around the battery cells (20). Wood further discloses an electrode terminal (22) which connects with a busbar (64), to electrically connect the battery cells (20, [0059-0060]; Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a busbar, as taught by Wood, to the battery module of Lu, to electrically connect the individual battery cells, as taught by Wood. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that a bottom plate (sheet 10) of the end cover (100) is an end cover bottom plate (10), wherein the first via hole (11) is defined on the end cover bottom plate (10, [0095]). Lu does not teach a flange surrounding the first via hole, configured to support a busbar.
As discussed above regarding claim 10, Wood discloses a bus bar (64). Lu further discloses a flange (first end 66) surrounding the electrode terminal (22, 66 may be annular and may completely encircle terminal 22, [0060]; Fig. 3), the flange (66) is configured to support the busbar (64); and the flange (66) is provided with a position column (electrode terminal 22 serves as a column which positions the busbar) matched with the busbar (64; see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the busbar of Wood, including a flange with the battery module of Lu. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Lu further discloses that the bottom plate (10) of the base (100) is a base bottom plate (10), the plurality of side plates (peripheral walls 20) of the base (100) are connected to the base bottom plate (10), the plurality of side plates (20) are circumferentially arranged around the base bottom plate (10) to define the installation slot (columnar space, [0073]), and the second end of the battery cell (1) is disposed in the installation slot (columnar space, [0073-0074]; see Figs. 8-9). Lu does not clearly disclose a pressure relief cavity.
Wood et al. discloses a modular battery system (10) comprising battery cells (20) and interconnecting sleeves (30) around the battery cells (20). Wood further teaches an embodiment comprising a vent housing (350), configured to accommodate a cell (20), which creates a plenum air space (meeting the claimed pressure relief cavity) below the sleeve (30, [0082]; see Fig. 16). The vent housing taught by Wood allows gas vented from the cell to escape out of the sleeve (330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a vent housing with a pressure relief cavity (air space) as taught by Wood, to the base (100) of Lu and communicating with the installation slot (columnar space), to allow gas vented from the cell to escape from the base. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Furthermore, the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, modified Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. When the combination described above regarding claim 14 is made, Modified Lu would include a pressure relief cavity (air space/vent housing) defined in the base bottom plate (10), and the base bottom plate would be provided with a via hole (11, as taught by Lu, [0095]) communicated with the added pressure relief cavity (air space/vent housing). Even if the vent housing of Wood is considered an additional structure added to the base bottom plate (10) of modified Lu, it would still be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the vent housing into the bottom base plate. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, modified Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Wood further discloses that the pressure relief cavity (vent housing 350 with air space) is provided with a plurality of pressure relief holes (openings 356), which allow gas vented from the cell to escape ([0082]; Fig. 16). Provided that the vent housing (350) taught by Wood is combined with and defined in the base bottom plate (10) of Lu as discussed above regarding claim 15, the plurality of pressure relief holes (356) taught by Wood, would be respectively defined on the base bottom plate (10) of modified Lu. Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, modified Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Wood further discloses an upper plate (ledge 344), configured to support the battery cell; a lower plate (end wall 352) disposed opposite to and at intervals with the upper plate (344), wherein the pressure relief cavity (air space) is defined between the top plate (344) and the bottom plate (352), and the via hole (corresponding to the hole which accommodates the cylindrical projection) penetrates through the upper plate and the lower plate; and a plurality of reinforcing blocks (connecting members 354) disposed between the upper plate (344) and the lower plate (352) and arranged at intervals along a circumferential direction of the via hole (see Fig. 16), wherein one of the pressure relief holes (356) is defined between every two adjacent ones of the reinforcing blocks (354, [0082]; see Fig. 16). Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 17.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 109119556 A, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) in view of Wood et al. (US 20090111015 A1) as applied to claims 10-12 and 14-17 above, and further in view of Zeiler et al. (WO 2020163285 A1, published 13 Aug 2020).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Modified Lu further discloses a top surface (see inner surface of sheet 10, Fig. 5) of the base bottom plate (10) in contact with the second end of the battery cell (1, see Fig. 8) and adjacent to an inner wall of the installation slot (columnar space) of the base (100, see Fig. 5). Modified Lu does not disclose a plurality of gluing slots.
Zeiler et al. discloses a cell module assembly comprising adhesive path (430) through mounting holes (260) that creates multiple points of adhesive contact with each battery cell (102, [0086]; see Figs. 7H-7J).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a plurality of gluing slots, such as those taught by Zeiler et al., disposed on a top surface of the base bottom plate of modified Lu, to create multiple points of adhesive contact, as taught by Zeiler. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 109119556 A, paragraphs cited from provided English translation) in view of Newman et al. (US 20190296407 A1, published 26 Sep 2019).
Regarding claim 24, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lu does not disclose a glue injection hole. However, Figure 6a of Lu shows a small triangular hole formed between three connected end covers (100).
Newman et al. discloses a battery cell location frame (900), which comprises a recess (912) configured as a receptacle, hole, blind hole, or through-hole between battery cells, and teaches that the recess (912) may be configured to receive structural adhesive or contact adhesive ([0110-0111]; Fig. 9A). Thus, the examiner interprets this recess (912) as a glue injection hole. Newman further teaches that adding an adhesive into this hole (912) provides enhanced surface area contact ([0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the hole formed between the connected end covers of Lu could be used as a glue injection hole to receive an adhesive and provide enhanced surface area contact between battery cells, as taught by Newman. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Lu et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lu does not disclose an adhesive layer or a glue injection hole. However, Figure 6a of Lu shows a small triangular hole formed between three connected end covers (100).
Newman et al. discloses a battery module (108) with a battery cell structural support (400) which comprises foam adhesive layer (structural foam/adhesive foam 404, [0081]; Fig. 7C) to provide rigidity, strength, and insulation ([0051]) and a structural adhesive layer (thermal adhesive layer 924) to provides an enhanced adhesive contact between the components in the battery module (108, [0112, 0115]; Fig. 9B) which are stacked (when Fig. 7C is taken in combination with Fig. 9B, the adhesive foam and thermal adhesive are stacked above cooling plate 224). Newman further discloses a battery cell location frame (900), which comprises a recess (912) configured as a receptacle, hole, blind hole, or through-hole between battery cells, and teaches that the recess (912) may be configured to receive structural adhesive or contact adhesive ([0110-0111]; Fig. 9A). Thus, the examiner interprets this recess (912) as a glue injection hole. Newman also teaches that a thermal adhesive or structural foam can likewise be injected into the battery module ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a foam adhesive layer (such as adhesive foam 404 above) for rigidity, strength, and insulation, as taught by Newman, and a structural adhesive layer (such as thermal adhesive 924 above), for enhanced adhesive contact, as taught by Newman, to the battery module of Lu. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the hole formed between the connected end covers of Lu could be used as a glue injection hole, similar to the recess of Newman, to inject or mold both the foam adhesive and the structural adhesive, as taught by Newman. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Lu meets the limitations of claim 25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Wood et al. further discloses that the pressure relief cavity (air space in vent housing 350) is provided with a plurality of reinforcing blocks (connecting members 354) therein, each of the plurality of reinforcing blocks is respectively connected with a top surface (ledge 344) and a bottom surface (end wall 352) of the pressure relief cavity (air space). However, Lu et al., Wood et al., and Zeiler et al. all fail to disclose that the plurality of gluing slots are disposed on and extended into the plurality of reinforcing blocks one by one, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have a clear teaching or motivation to include gluing slots, such as those taught by Zeiler, extending into the reinforcing blocks of Wood as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30a - 6p.
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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights