DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/04/26. The applicant has overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection and the 102 rejection. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. However, the present claims (including new claims 23-24) are now finally rejected over new grounds of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 7-22 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/26/05 and 01/08/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/11/26 was considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quy et al 2022/0093989 in view of the publication WO 2018/131221 (hereinafter WO’221).
As to claim 1:
Quy et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a battery pack module comprising a cooling device/plate for cooling a plurality of battery cells including a mounting frame/portion-plate contacting the battery cells for supporting/holding the battery cells and including a thermal breaking zone/rupturable part for venting (Abstract; 0002-0006; 0018-0022; 0034-0035; see Claims 1, 7-8 & 17; see Figures 1-4).
Figures 1-4, infra, illustrate the structure of the battery pack module:
PNG
media_image1.png
280
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
472
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
482
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
482
698
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Quy et al are applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific upper/lower plates including a multilayer film and their thickness.
As to claims 3, 23-24: In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, WO’221 discloses that it is known to make a battery pack/module including, inter alia, a plurality of battery cells mounted on a lower plate and being enclosed by an upper plate wherein the upper/lower plates includes a multilayer structure/film and have a thickness of 0.5-1.5 mm (500-1500 µm) (Abstract; 0029; see Figures 1-4 & 9). With respect to the limitation “configured to rupture at the contact portions”, the same has been deemed inherently present in the contact points/portions/sections/areas and/or segments of the upper and the lower plate as any point thereof can rupture or is capable of rupturing at any predetermined pressure and/or temperature. Further, since independent claim 1 fails to define the specific material composition of the upper/lower plate and/or mount portion, or their specific thickness (if so intended), or any other significant characteristic capable of rupturing in response to certain operating conditions, the limitation “configure to rupture at the contact portions” adds nothing of significance to define patentability.
Figures 1-4 and 9, infra, depict the battery module structure:
PNG
media_image5.png
255
314
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
454
668
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
430
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
334
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, it would have been within the ambit of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific upper/lower plates of WO’221 including the multilayer film and their thickness in the battery pack module of Quy et al as WO’221 teaches that the specifically disclosed battery module upper/lower plates assist in providing a lid which is a for a cell tray and makes it possible to suppress the spread of fire to surrounding cells when heating or ignition of a cell occurs. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
With respect to the thickness of the specific upper/lower plates, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upper/lower plates of Quy et al by having the thickness as instantly clamed because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions (changes in size/proportion) of the claimed feature and a feature having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art feature, element or component, the claimed element, feature or component is not patentably distinct from the prior art element, feature or component. That is, limitations relating to the size of the element, feature or component are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art as it is noted that changes in size is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular thickness of the claimed of the upper/lower plates is critical. In re Rose 105 USPQ 237; In re Rinehart 189 USPQ 143; In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 & 225 USPQ 232 (See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication EP 4199215 (heretofore EP’215) in view of the publication WO 2018/131221 (hereinafter WO’221).
As to claim 1:
EP’215 discloses that it is known to make a battery pack/module including, inter alia, a plurality of battery cells and a module case accommodating the plurality of battery cells, wherein the module case include an upper plate positioned on the plurality of battery cells and a lower plate positioned below the plurality of battery cells so that the upper plate includes a vent hole and a first sealing cap in a second plate which faces the first plate, the vent hole through which gas is forced out, and the first sealing cap to seal the vent hole (Abstract; 0032-0033; 0034; 0036; 0040-0041; Figures 1 & 6) wherein the upper plate 210 includes a first plate 211 and a second plate 215, and a channel F; and the lower plate may be the same (0040-0041); and the battery module is configured such that the battery cells 100 are secured to the module housing (i.e., including the upper/lower plates) with a thermally conductive adhesive (0034).
Figures 1 and 6, infra, depict the battery module structure:
PNG
media_image9.png
488
486
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
522
520
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4: EP’215 discloses the upper plate 210 includes a first plate 211 and a second plate 215, and a channel F; and the lower plate may be the same (0040-0041); and the battery module is configured such that the battery cells 100 are secured to the module housing (i.e., including the upper/lower plates) with a thermally conductive adhesive (0034). Examiner’s note: thus, in this case, EP’215 readily envision the formation of a layered structure/multilayer arrangement including upper/lower plates including first/second plates 211, 215 and a thermally conductive adhesive contacting the same to secure the battery cells (i.e., applicant’s outer protective layer, the reinforcement metal layer and the inner adhesive layer, respectively).
EP’215 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific upper/lower plates including a multilayer film and their thickness.
As to claims 3, 23-24: In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, WO’221 discloses that it is known to make a battery pack/module including, inter alia, a plurality of battery cells mounted on a lower plate and being enclosed by an upper plate wherein the upper/lower plates includes a multilayer structure/film and have a thickness of 0.5-1.5 mm (500-1500 µm) (Abstract; 0029; see Figures 1-4 & 9). With respect to the limitation “configure to rupture at the contact portions”, the same has been deemed inherently present in the contact points/portions/sections/areas and/or segments of the upper and the lower plate as any point thereof can rupture or is capable of rupturing at any predetermined pressure and/or temperature. Further, since independent claim 1 fails to define the specific material composition of the upper/lower plate and/or mount portion, or their specific thickness (if so intended), or any other significant characteristic capable of rupturing in response to certain operating conditions, the limitation “configure to rupture at the contact portions” adds nothing of significance to define patentability.
Figures 1-4 and 9, infra, depict the battery module structure:
PNG
media_image5.png
255
314
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
454
668
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
430
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
334
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, it would have been within the ambit of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific upper/lower plates of WO’221 including the multilayer film and their thickness in the battery pack module of EP’215 as WO’221 teaches that the specifically disclosed battery module upper/lower plates assist in providing a lid which is a for a cell tray and makes it possible to suppress the spread of fire to surrounding cells when heating or ignition of a cell occurs. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
With respect to the thickness of the specific upper/lower plates, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upper/lower plates of Quy et al by having the thickness as instantly clamed because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions (changes in size/proportion) of the claimed feature and a feature having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art feature, element or component, the claimed element, feature or component is not patentably distinct from the prior art element, feature or component. That is, limitations relating to the size of the element, feature or component are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art as it is noted that changes in size is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular thickness of the claimed of the upper/lower plates is critical. In re Rose 105 USPQ 237; In re Rinehart 189 USPQ 143; In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 & 225 USPQ 232 (See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (a) Quy et al 2022/0093989 in view of the publication WO 2018/131221 (hereinafter WO’221) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the publication EP 4199215 (heretofore EP’215).
Quy et al and WO’221 are both applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific multilayer including the outer protective layer, the reinforcement metal layer and the inner adhesive layer.
As to claim 4: In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, EP’215 discloses that it is known to make a battery pack/module including, inter alia, a plurality of battery cells and a module case accommodating the plurality of battery cells, wherein the module case include an upper plate positioned on the plurality of battery cells and a lower plate positioned below the plurality of battery cells so that the upper plate includes a vent hole and a first sealing cap in a second plate which faces the first plate, the vent hole through which gas is forced out, and the first sealing cap to seal the vent hole (Abstract; 0032-0033; 0034; 0036; 0040-0041; Figures 1 & 6) wherein the upper plate 210 includes a first plate 211 and a second plate 215, and a channel F; and the lower plate may be the same (0040-0041); and the battery module is configured such that the battery cells 100 are secured to the module housing (i.e., including the upper/lower plates) with a thermally conductive adhesive (0034). Examiner’s note: thus, in this case, EP’215 readily envision the formation of a layered structure/multilayer arrangement including upper/lower plates including first/second plates 211, 215 and a thermally conductive adhesive contacting the same to secure the battery cells (i.e., applicant’s outer protective layer, the reinforcement metal layer and the inner adhesive layer, respectively). Figures 1 and 6, infra, depict the battery module structure:
PNG
media_image9.png
488
486
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
522
520
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, it would have been within the ambit of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific multilayer arrangement of EP’215 including the upper/lower plates including respective first/second plates and the thermally conductive adhesive (i.e., applicant’s outer protective layer, the reinforcement metal layer and the inner adhesive layer) in the battery pack module of Quy et al and WO’221 as EP’215 teaches that the specifically disclosed upper/lower plate including respective first/second plates and a thermally conductive adhesive assists in providing a battery module for quickly feeding a coolant to a battery cell in which a fire occurred and smoothly forcing venting gas out while also securing the battery cells to the module housing. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the foregoing claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection, and 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.
Although believed unnecessary due to the new grounds of rejection, the examiner likes to briefly address the limitation “configured to rupture at the contact portions”. In this respect, the same has been deemed inherently present in the contact points/portions/sections/areas and/or segments of the upper and the lower plate as any point thereof can rupture or is capable of rupturing at any predetermined pressure and/or temperature. (emphasis added) Further, since independent claim 1 fails to define the specific material composition of the upper/lower plate and/or mount portion, or their specific thickness (if so intended), or any other significant characteristic capable of rupturing in response to certain operating conditions, the limitation “configure to rupture at the contact portions” adds nothing of significance to define patentability.
Applicant is kindly reminded that the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is substantially the same, or performs substantially the same functionality, or is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Moreover, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights