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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, and 3-10 and added new claim 11; claims 1, and 3-11 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The 112 rejections and the 102 rejections over Hashimoto are withdrawn in view of the amendments. The rejections are maintained over Zhang and Hashimoto. A new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Zhang fails to suggest the “single” opening. This argument is not persuasive in light of Fig. 25, cited in the rejection, which shows a single opening 111 between the pair of side portions 11, 11 and the pair of rod portions 113, 113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109428025) in view of Hashimoto, hereinafter Zhang and Hashimoto, both of record.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang suggests a battery module (M), comprising: a battery cell stack (Fig. 22) in which a plurality of battery cells (21) is stacked (see also Figs. 15, 19-20, and 25); a module frame (1, Figs. 19-22 and 25) which surrounds the battery cell stack and has an opening portion (111) formed on a lower side (see “lower” annotated Fig. 25), the module frame having a first end and a second end (e.g., labelled 1st end and 2nd end in annotated Fig. 25), wherein the module frame includes an upper surface (12) covering an upper portion (labelled “upper” in Fig. 25) of the battery cell stack, and a pair of side portions (i.e., 11, 11 in Fig. 25) extending from opposite sides of the upper surface (12) to cover opposite side surfaces of the battery cell stack, and wherein the opening portion (111) is a single opening (Fig. 25), edges of the single opening (111) formed by a bottom edge of the pair of side portions (11, 11, e.g., Fig. 25) and a pair of rod portions at the first end and the second end of the module frame (labelled “bottom edges” in annotated Fig. 25), respectively, each rod portion formed to cross between the pair of side portions (11, 11) at a bottom (i.e., “lower”) of the pair of side portions (11, 11, see Fig. 25), wherein the module frame includes open ends (see Figs. 22, 25, where ends are understood as open provided plates 6 have access to the battery at a 1st end and a 2nd end), each open end surrounded by an end edge of the upper surface, end edges of the pair of side portions and one of the pair of rod portions (labelled “end edges” in annotated Fig. 25).
Zhang suggests a contact portion (2222) in the openings (111) of the frame (1) which fills the opening and is in contact with the cells, thereby allowing heat dissipation of the batteries, [0015, 0069, 0090, etc.]. Zhang does not suggest the contact portion (2222) is a thermally conductive resin layer. However, Hashimoto suggests a frame 16 having an opening portion (see e.g., Figs. 5, 11) with a thermally conductive resin layer (19, 12) formed in the opening portion, such that the thermally conductive resin layer fills the opening portion and is in contact with the battery cell stack (5(1), Figs. 8, 15, etc.), thereby allowing heat dissipation of the cells, see e.g., Figs. 8, 15, 17, etc., [0004, 0021, 0074-0076, 0087-0088]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the opening includes a thermally conductive resin layer that fills the opening and is in contact with the cells, as suggested by Hashimoto, with the expectation of dissipating heat from the battery cells.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang suggests the module frame (1) is made of an aluminum material ([0103]).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang appears to suggests the upper surface (12), the pair of side portions (11, 11), and the pair of rod portions (e.g., 113, 113, labelled “rod” in annotated Fig. 25) are integrally formed (i.e., single piece). The frame (1) of Zhang is used to arrange/hold the plurality of cells in a stack and the rigidity of the frame is such that deformation caused by the expansion of the cells during cycling is reduced, [0096]; hence, there is an understanding the walls (11) of the frame (1) are connected to each other as a single piece to maintain the stack of cells and to effectively reduce deformation of the stack due to expansion of the cells. Further, a single piece construction would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice that would avoid additional steps (e.g., welding) necessary to form the frame from multiple pieces around the cells, see MPEP 2144.04, V., B.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Zhang does not suggest a battery pack, comprising a plurality of battery modules, a pack frame configured to accommodate the plurality of battery modules, wherein the thermally conductive resin layer is in contact with the pack frame through the opening portion. However, Hashimoto suggests a battery pack (100, Fig. 1), comprising a plurality of battery modules (5), and a pack frame (61, 71) configured to accommodate the plurality of battery modules, wherein the thermally conductive resin layer (19, 12) is in contact with the pack frame (61, 71) through the opening portion. Hashimoto suggests battery packs are used to provide electric power to electric vehicles; the number cells/modules in the pack is increased to satisfy the high output electric power required therefore, [0004, 0121]. Further, a heat dissipating mechanism, using a thermally conductive resin layer, enables heat dissipation, thereby controlling the heat generated by the increased number of cells/modules. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a plurality of modules of Zhang are accommodated in a battery pack, comprising a pack frame, wherein a thermally conductive resin layer is in contact with the pack frame through the opening portion, to form a suitable power supply device for an electric vehicle with a means of controlling heat generated by the high number of cells in the battery pack.
Regarding Claims 7, Zhang was modified by Hashimoto to suggest a plurality of battery modules (see rejection of claim 5). Hashimoto suggests the battery modules of the plurality of battery modules are spaced apart from each other, see e.g., Figs. 1-5, 7, 20 (separation by at least fastening members 4(41)).
Regarding Claims 8-10, as set forth under the rejection of claim 5, Zhang was modified by Hashimoto. Hashimoto suggests an area of the pack frame (e.g., 71) facing the plurality of battery modules is larger than an area of the plurality of battery modules (5), see Fig. 1, heat generated from the battery cell stack is directly transferred to the pack frame (61, 71) through the thermally conductive resin layer (19, 12), and the thermally conductive resin layer (19, 12) directly contacts the battery module (1(5)) and the pack frame (61, of 61, 71), see e.g., Figs. 1, 3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 17.
Regarding Claims 11, Zhang suggests end plates (6, 6 [0059]) covering the open ends of the module frame (see Figs. 19-20, 23).
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729