DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/25 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation:
Per claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “longitudinal direction” of the plurality of battery cell assemblies, corresponds to any direction (x, y, and z axis).
Per claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term cooling passage being “below” the plurality of battery cell assemblies, corresponds to any area/sides of the plurality of battery cell assemblies.
Per claim 8, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “lower portion” corresponds to any area within the module frame.
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 1-6, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fees et al. (US 2018/0108891).
Regarding claim 1, Fees discloses a battery module comprising a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cell assemblies, each battery cell assembly including at least one battery cell [0040], and a module frame (310) extending in a longitudinal direction of the plurality of battery cell assemblies, the module frame being configured to accommodate therein the plurality of battery assemblies in a row in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3A-C, [0040]: prismatic cell arrangement). Fees additionally disclose that the module frame includes at least one cooling passage configured to receive coolant for cooling the plurality of battery cell assemblies [0066], the at least one cooling passage being located below the plurality of battery cell assemblies [0061]. Further, Fees discloses a connector member connecting portion are mounted into the top-holes of the battery module chamber may be equipped with electrical coupling surfaces interfaces to the respective battery modules [0071] Fig. 3C), thereby is opposite the at least one cooling passage such that the plurality of battery cell assemblies are located between the upper side of the module frame and the at least one cooling passage. Furthermore, Fees discloses a cooling plate, wherein it is known in the art that cooling plate contains internal channels or passages in which a coolant flows [0061]. The examiner is taking the position that the bottom stratum of the cooling plate that supports the cooling passage would corresponds to the claimed “a lower reinforcing portion”. Given that the base of the cooling plate and cooling passage in the cooling plate are of different entity, Fee discloses that the lower reinforcing portion “separate” from the at least one cooling passage.
Regarding claim 2, Fees discloses the plurality of battery cell assemblies comprises a first and second battery cell assemblies comprising at least one battery cell, wherein the first and second battery cell assembly are slidably inserted into and mounted on the module frame (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 3, Fees discloses the first battery cell assembly is slidably inserted in a first side of the module frame, and wherein the second battery cell assembly is slidably inserted into a second side of the module frame opposite the first side (Fig. 3, [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Fees discloses front and rear covers (300C) as claimed (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claims 5-6, Fees discloses the front and rear covers as claimed [0041-0043]. Alternatively, Fee discloses front cover and rear cover, however, fails to explicitly discloses the cover comprises of sublayers of front (or rear) end plate, front (or rear) sealing plate, and front (or rear) sealant. However, given that there is no structural or material difference between these sublayers, the examiner is taking the position that the outermost stratum of the cover corresponds to the claimed front (or rear) end plate, the middle stratum of the cover corresponds to the claimed front (or rear) sealing plate, and the edges of the sealing plate corresponds to the claimed front (or rear) sealant.
Regarding the limitation “applied”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
Regarding claims 8 and 11-14, Fees discloses cooling passage and cooling manifold as claimed ([0061-0063], [0087], All Figs).
Regarding claim 10, Fees discloses a vehicle as claimed ([0003], [0036]).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fees et al. (US 2018/0108891).
Regarding claim 9, Fees discloses plurality of battery modules that are arranged in parallel in a width direction of the module frame, and adjacent battery modules of the plurality of battery modules are connected between the corresponding module frames facing each other in the width direction (Fig. 2D and 3B). Although Fees discloses that each battery modules are configured with a battery module compartment on each side as a paired module compartment arrangement [0068], Fees fails to explicitly discloses how it is configured, specifically by bolting.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fee’s battery modules are connected via bolting between module frames. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to optimize the connection so that it is bolted since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the structural component of being bolted is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize connections to be bolted in order to create a more strongly bonded module frame.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fees et al. (US 2018/0108891) in view of Wada et al. (JP 2018-170211).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Fees discloses a battery module comprising a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cell assemblies, each battery cell assembly including at least one battery cell [0040], and a module frame (310) extending in a longitudinal direction of the plurality of battery cell assemblies, the module frame being configured to accommodate therein the plurality of battery assemblies in a row in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3A-C, [0040]: prismatic cell arrangement). Fees additionally disclose that the module frame includes at least one cooling passage configured to receive coolant for cooling the plurality of battery cell assemblies [0066], the at least one cooling passage being located below the plurality of battery cell assemblies [0061]. Further, Fees discloses a connector member connecting portion are mounted into the top-holes of the battery module chamber may be equipped with electrical coupling surfaces interfaces to the respective battery modules [0071] Fig. 3C), thereby is opposite the at least one cooling passage such that the plurality of battery cell assemblies are located between the upper side of the module frame and the at least one cooling passage. Fees fails to explicitly disclose a lower reinforcing portion separate from the at least one cooling passage, the lower reinforcing portion being located under the at least one cooling passage, wherein the lower reinforcing portion includes a lattice-rib structure as presently claimed.
Wada discloses a battery pack module comprising a lattice-shaped rib in the metal housing (2), wherein it is located under the at least one cooling passage (Abstract, Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fee’s battery module to include a lower lattice-rib structure reinforcing portion under the at least one cooling passage, as suggested by Wada, in order to obtain a battery pack module with improve heat dissipation and coolability (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Fees discloses the plurality of battery cell assemblies comprises a first and second battery cell assemblies comprising at least one battery cell, wherein the first and second battery cell assembly are slidably inserted into and mounted on the module frame (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 3, Fees discloses the first battery cell assembly is slidably inserted in a first side of the module frame, and wherein the second battery cell assembly is slidably inserted into a second side of the module frame opposite the first side (Fig. 3, [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Fees discloses front and rear covers (300C) as claimed (Fig. 3C).
Regarding claims 5-6, Fees discloses the front and rear covers as claimed [0041-0043]. Alternatively, Fee discloses front cover and rear cover, however, fails to explicitly discloses the cover comprises of sublayers of front (or rear) end plate, front (or rear) sealing plate, and front (or rear) sealant. However, given that there is no structural or material difference between these sublayers, the examiner is taking the position that the outermost stratum of the cover corresponds to the claimed front (or rear) end plate, the middle stratum of the cover corresponds to the claimed front (or rear) sealing plate, and the edges of the sealing plate corresponds to the claimed front (or rear) sealant.
Regarding the limitation “applied”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
Regarding claims 8 and 11-14, Fees discloses cooling passage and cooling manifold as claimed ([0061-0063], [0087], All Figs).
Regarding claim 9, Fees discloses plurality of battery modules that are arranged in parallel in a width direction of the module frame, and adjacent battery modules of the plurality of battery modules are connected between the corresponding module frames facing each other in the width direction (Fig. 2D and 3B). Although Fees discloses that each battery modules are configured with a battery module compartment on each side as a paired module compartment arrangement [0068], Fees fails to explicitly discloses how it is configured, specifically by bolting.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fee’s battery modules are connected via bolting between module frames. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to optimize the connection so that it is bolted since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the structural component of being bolted is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize connections to be bolted in order to create a more strongly bonded module frame.
Regarding claim 10, Fees discloses a vehicle as claimed ([0003], [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights