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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to an energy storage system, classified in H01M 10/625.
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to a method for assembling an energy storage system, classified in H01M 10/658.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the process as claimed could be used to make another and materially different product. Here, the product requires the structure of an enclosure, wherein at least one battery module is retained inside the enclosure. The process does not require any steps directed towards an enclosure, or wherein at least one battery module is retained inside the enclosure. Here, the process could therefore be used to produce an energy storage system which does not include fully enclosed battery cells, and does not include an enclosure, which would be a product materially different from the claimed product.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Here, where the product and process are directed to distinct invention, there would therefore be a significant search and examination scope increase compared to the search and examination scope required to examine a single invention. Accordingly, this represents an undue search and examination burden if restriction were not required.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney of Record Michael Locklar on October 28, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 2, 2026, November 6, 2025, July 23, 2025, May 9, 2025, and October 31, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the language “foam retaining strap encircling the first and second foam pieces” in line 9 of the claim. Here, this limitation is indefinite as it is not clear if the foam retaining strap is a retaining strap that is made of foam, or a retaining strap which has the function of retaining foam. Based on the instant specification paragraph 0036, “Likewise, while the illustrated embodiment includes two foam retaining straps 320, other means can be used to retain foam members 300”), this limitation will be interpreted based on the foam retaining straps having the function of retaining foam.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijaz (US 8409744 B), in further view of Hascoet (US 20160268560 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ijaz is an analogous art to the claimed invention, disclosing an energy storage system (Abstract, “A battery system”) comprising a plurality of batteries arranged in a row, the row having first and second row ends, shown in their figure 22, showing stacked battery units in a row, having first and second row ends. Additionally, Ijaz discloses first and second end pieces abutting the first and second row ends respectively, here pressure plate 50, which abuts the first and second row end of each battery unit, depicted in figures 11 and 12, which shows the abutting structure of the pressure plate 50 against a row end of the battery units. Additionally, Ijaz discloses structure which comprises an end piece retaining strap which encircles the first and second end pieces and batteries therebetween, here steel band 530, shown in figures 11 and 12, which envelops the modules stack of cells and pressure plates (Column 10 lines 5-7, “FIG. 11 shows steel band 530, which is one of two steel bands used to envelop the module's main stack of cells, compliant pads, heatsinks, and pressure plates.”). Steel bands apply a first compressive force on to the first and second end pieces, thereby defining a battery assembly (Column 10 lines 12-14, “he length of steel band 530 is defined by the required clamp force to properly compress all of the compliant pads in the main stack,”). Additionally, the battery assembly has a plurality of external corners, shown in figure 22.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires first and second foam pieces enclosing at least each external corner of the battery assembly, Ijaz fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to Hascoet, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing an energy storage system (Abstract, “The present invention relates to an electricity storage unit”). Hascoet discloses structure where their electricity storage units comprises walls which are disposed at corners of the battery cell units, to prevent unwanted cell contact and avoid destructive contact between battery units and a surrounding enclosure (Paragraph 0048, “The aforementioned pads 220 have shapes complementary to the corner of the housing of each cell 1. They include three walls 222, 224, 226 perpendicular to one another and arranged as the corner of a cube, each designed to run along one of the walls of the housing in the vicinity of its corner. Such pads 220 make it possible to avoid the cells 1 colliding in their upper portion and avoid destructive contact with the walls of the shell 10, particularly the upper wall 110B.”). Hascoet further discloses that these corner wall units are made of foam (Paragraph 0013, “The abutments are made in particular of an elastomeric material such as rubber or an EPDM or a thermoplastic or a non-metallic cellular material (foam),”), and that they further are made of a thermally insulating material so as to decouple the cells from the surrounding enclosure, and to limit heat loss (Paragraph 0013, “The abutments are preferably made of a thermally insulating material, so as to thermally decouple the cells and the shell and to limit heat losses due to contact of the shell with the surrounding air.”).
Additionally, Hascoet discloses a foam retaining strap which encircles the first and second foam pieces, so as to maintain them in a desired position relative to the battery assembly, thereby defining the borders of the battery module, as shown in Hascoet’s figure 8, where straps 340 surround the cells and the foam retaining components (Paragraph 0079, “The pressing means 300 can consist of one or more straps 340”), as well as an additional shell layer comprising walls opposite the reference walls (Paragraph 0014, “The pressing means are preferably designed to press onto the abutment(s) interposed between one of the cells and the wall opposite the reference wall, particularly the upper wall, of the set so as to hold these abutments in place despite the vibrations that they undergo.”). Here, Hascoet further discloses that the retaining straps allow for the holding of the battery cell in place, overcoming destabilizing vibrations.
Accordingly, based on the benefits presented by Hascoet, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the foam walls and foam retaining straps and surrounding shell structure of Hascoet to the invention of Ijaz, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation which requires first and second foam pieces enclosing at least each external corner of the battery assembly, as well as the limitation requiring a foam retaining strap encircling the first and second foam pieces so as to maintain the first and second foam pieces in a desired position relative to the battery assembly, thereby defining a battery module.
Additionally, Ijaz discloses an enclosure wherein at least one battery module is retained inside the enclosure (Column 4 lines 20-27, “FIG. 3 shows a prismatic battery cell 300. A prismatic cell has two large flat surfaces, top surface 306 and bottom surface 307 (not visible), that are basically parallel to each other and which are used for mechanical retention and thermal management inside the module. The cell's enclosure may be referred to as a `pouch` because it is a non-rigid flexible sheet that is folded and bonded to create a cost-effective environmentally-sealed housing.”).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Hascoet makes obvious the first and second foam pieces. Additionally, Hascoet discloses that the foam pieces, which are the abutments are made of a thermally insulating material so as to thermally decouple the cells and shell (Paragraph 0013, “The abutments are preferably made of a thermally insulating material, so as to thermally decouple the cells and the shell and to limit heat losses due to contact of the shell with the surrounding air. Obviously, the abutments will not necessarily provide thermal insulation between the cells and the shell by themselves,”), where the shell constitutes the environment. Accordingly, this structure represents the foam pieces being optimized to allow a desired rate of heat flow from the batteries by the environment. As Hascoet discloses that this heat flow structure is the in constant effect, this includes all circumstances, including situations where an expected ambient temperature of an environment in which the energy storage system is to operate is less than a target operating temperature of the batteries.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, Hascoet discloses structure which comprises a secondary shell system surrounding the battery enclosure. Here, Hascoet further discloses that said structure comprises an enclosure retaining latch member, which is a pressing means that presses the cells against the surrounding walls (Paragraph 0010, “and pressing means designed to press on one face of each of the cells so as to press each cell against the reference wall, the pressing means being attached with release capability to the first portion of the shell.”; Paragraph 0079, “The pressing means 300 can consist of one or more straps 340 formed by two strands of which one linked end is connected to the lower wall and designed to cooperate in the vicinity of their free end so as to surround at least one cell, preferably each of the cells 1 separately, as shown schematically in FIG. 8,”). Accordingly, where the latch member 340 is a pressing means, it applies a second compressive force to the battery module.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the second compressive force is less than the first compressive force, the magnitude of the forces of Hascoet and Ijaz are not disclosed. However, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to try this configuration, as comparing the first compressive force and the second compressive force, there are three identified predictable solutions with reasonable expectations of success in the compressive forces retaining the battery, the first force being greater than the second, the second force being greater than the first, or the forces being equal. As a result of the finite predicable solutions, a prima facie case of obviousness is present for the limitation of the claim which requires that the second compressive force is less than the first compressive force.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 3. Additionally, Hascoet’s latch member 340 releasably engages an attachment fixture, where the attachment fixture is the upper surface 2 of the cells 1, where the manner of the engagements is the friction caused by the closing of the latch 340, as shown in their figure 8.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 3. Additionally, Hascoet’s latch member comprises first and second members which are pivotably connected, as shown in their figure 8, where the latch handle is the first member, and it pivots inside the components in which it is mounted, which are the second members, thereby comprising a pivotable connection. Additionally, as shown in figure 8, the upper face 2, which the latch is seated against, is the latch plane defined by the latch member.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 5. Additionally, where the instant claim requires that the end piece retaining strap defines a first plane, said plane is interpreted as being parallel with a front face of the battery module of Ijaz. Additionally, where the foam retaining strap defines a second plane, based on the structure of the foam retaining strap shown in Hascoet’s figure 8, where the strap encircles the battery case, the second plane is parallel with a side face of the battery module. Additionally, as discussed above, the latch plane is parallel with the upper face 2 of Hascoet’s invention, which is parallel with a top face of the battery. Accordingly, where the first plane is parallel with the front face, the second plane is parallel with the side face, and the latch plane is parallel with the top face, the three planes are mutually orthogonal.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure wherein each end piece includes a high voltage terminal, Ijaz discloses that the end pieces include high voltage terminal, as a result of the disclosure of the busbar 508 being present in the recessed areas 508 (Paragraph 0076, “Pressure plate 50 has two recessed areas 508 to receive a steel busbar nut or nuts (not shown). The nut's design is intentionally simple to be a cost-effective solution. The nut has three threaded holes for attachment. The center hole grips a steel fastener (not shown) that retains the busbar nut to the pressure plate. The two other holes grip steel fasteners that attach an external power lug and wiring harness to the module's negative or positive busbar, which are explained in subsequent sections.”). Where busbar nuts and busbars are connected to the assemblage of battery cells, they therefore comprise busbars capable of connected to for access to the full voltage performance of the battery system, thereby representing high-voltage terminals.
Additionally, Ijaz further discloses structure where the end pieces comprise internally threaded openings 508 (Paragraph 0076, “Pressure plate 50 has two recessed areas 508 to receive a steel busbar nut or nuts (not shown). The nut's design is intentionally simple to be a cost-effective solution. The nut has three threaded holes for attachment.”), where the center hole openings 508 is also a pass through mounting hole for a bus bar (Paragraph 0076, “The center hole grips a steel fastener (not shown) that retains the busbar nut to the pressure plate. The two other holes grip steel fasteners that attach an external power lug and wiring harness to the module's negative or positive busbar, which are explained in subsequent sections.”).
Additionally, the threaded hole structure can also act as a clip site, where a component can clip on to the threaded hole. It is noted that the claim does not require any clipping structure, but instead requires a clipping site, which is a site where clipping is able to occur.
Additionally, Ijaz discloses that the end pieces comprise cleat sites, here recessed sockets 503, 504, 505, and 506, which are recessed sockets that receive steel fastener components, such as retention bolts, thereby acting as cleat sites (Paragraph 0074, “Pressure plate 50 also has four passages with recessed sockets 503 , 504 , 505 , and 506 (also known as counter-bores) to receive steel fastener components such as cylindrical sleeves, washers, bushings, and retention bolts to foster a flexible attachment strategy. The present configuration permits a module to be mounted inside a battery pack's enclosure or on a battery station's rack via one of three mounting orientations, which is adequate for the majority of existing and predicted applications and customer requirements.”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 7. Additionally, Ijaz, as discussed above, discloses structure where the end pieces comprise two high voltage terminals, those being the recessed areas 508 which receive busbars which act as high voltage terminals for the positive and negative terminals for individual batteries in the battery system (Paragraph 0076, “Pressure plate 50 has two recessed areas 508 to receive a steel busbar nut or nuts (not shown). The nut's design is intentionally simple to be a cost-effective solution. The nut has three threaded holes for attachment. The center hole grips a steel fastener (not shown) that retains the busbar nut to the pressure plate. The two other holes grip steel fasteners that attach an external power lug and wiring harness to the module's negative or positive busbar, which are explained in subsequent sections.”). Here, where Ijaz discloses that the shape of the recessed areas is a part of the end pieces, the formation of said shapes therefore comprises a part of the voltage terminals being molded into the end pieces during manufacture of the end pieces. Accordingly, where the mounting portion of the high voltage terminals are molded into the end pieces, the limitation which requires that the high voltage terminals be molded into the end pieces is therefore satisfied.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, Ijaz discloses structure, as shown in their figure 10, where the end piece, here pressure plate 50, has multiple faces including an inner face and an outer face. Additionally, figure 10 depicts structure where the outer face includes an open cell structure.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, Ijaz discloses structure where the batteries have an axis of operational expansion, disclosing that their battery cells will expand during an electrical overload incident (Paragraph 0052, “The battery cell's non-rigid flexible pouch will physically expand if a worst case electrical overload incident occurs.”). Where such an incident occurs during battery operation, the expansion is therefore an operational expansion. Additionally, where the pouch is disclosed as being flexible and expanding, it expands in all possible axis directions. Accordingly, where the first compressive force surrounds the battery cells, shown in Ijaz’ figure 1 where the bands 51 which exert the first compressive force surround the battery cells, the operational expansion axes align with axes of the first compressive force.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, as discussed above Hascoet makes obvious the first and second foam pieces. Hascoet further discloses that the foam pieces are made of a thermally insulating material (Paragraph 0013, “The abutments are preferably made of a thermally insulating material, so as to thermally decouple the cells and the shell and to limit heat losses due to contact of the shell with the surrounding air.”) to thermally decouple the cells and the shell, representing the consideration of target battery operating temperature on the thermal insulation attribute of the pieces, and to limit heat losses due to contact of the shell with the surrounding air, representing consideration of an expected ambient air temperature on the thermal insulation attribute of the pieces. As the predetermined thermal conductivity is predetermined as falling into a thermally insulating range, and where is includes consideration of ambient temperature and battery operating temperature, it satisfies the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, as discussed above Hascoet makes obvious the first and second foam pieces. Hascoet further discloses that the foam pieces are made of a non-metallic cellular material (Paragraph 0013, " The abutments are made in particular of an elastomeric material such as rubber or an EPDM or a thermoplastic or a non-metallic cellular material (foam),”). Here, rubber, EPDM, and non-metallic thermoplastic cellular materials are electrically insulating, as is required by the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, Ijaz discloses a thermal management system in contact with the battery assembly (Column 6 lines 49-52, “Each cell contacts the heatsink via one of the cell's two flat surfaces to facilitate thermal management via conduction or forced convection heat transfer.”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijaz (US 8409744 B), in further view of Hascoet (US 20160268560 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Miloaga (US 20210305544 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. In regards to the limitation of the instant claim, Ijaz discloses structure, as shown in their figure 10, where the entirety of the outer face is made up of an open cells structure, the face comprising open regions and reinforcing ribs which surround said open regions, thereby comprising more than 25% of open cell structure.
However, Ijaz’s open cells structure comprises rectangular cells, rather than hexagonal cells as required by the instant claim. Therefore, we look to Miloaga, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards battery enclosure structure (Abstract, “A battery enclosure and method for manufacturing the same from organosheet materials.”). Here, Miloaga discloses the use of an outer cover with a honeycomb structure (Paragraph 0049, “The outer covers 110 includes a honeycomb structure 114”) and that the honeycomb structure provides protection against crushing forces experienced on the sides of the battery enclosure (Paragraph 0049, “The honeycomb structure 114 provides protection against crushing forces experienced on the sides of the battery enclosure 100 due to impact.”). Additionally, Miloaga discloses that the honeycomb structure provides strength and rigidity, and is designed to crush when impacted or loaded with force, specifically citing the force experienced in vehicular impact (Paragraph 0032, “This arrangement provides strength and rigidity while also being designed to crush when impacted or loaded with a particular force. The particular force may, for example include a typical force experienced during a side impact of a vehicle.”). Based on this teaching, where vehicular impact reactivity is a desirable attribute, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the honeycomb structure of Miloaga to the invention of Ijaz, thereby reading upon and making obvious the invention of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijaz (US 8409744 B), in further view of Hascoet (US 20160268560 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hariram (US 20150069068 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, in regards to the limit of the instant application, which requires that the first and second foam pieces comprise a material having a UL 94 V-0 rating, Ijaz and Hascoet are silent in regards to the flammability ratings of their materials. Therefore we look to Hariram, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a container for a battery (Paragraph 0005, “The container comprises a computer case, a tablet case, a battery case,”). Here, Hariram discloses that their container comprises a fire retarding material which does burn, specifically identifying this attribute as being those of the UL 94 V-0 standard (Paragraph 0022, “In other embodiments, the fire-retarding material 24 may comprise any type of fire-retarding material which retards fire having fire retarding properties equivalent to Underwriter Laboratories (UL) Rating of UL-94 V-0 (does not burn) and an operating temperature range of 2450 degrees F. to 3470 degrees F.”). Where materials not burning is a desirable behavior for Ijaz, who’s invention comprises outgassing of hot gas in the event of an electric overload (Paragraph 0052, “The battery cell's non-rigid flexible pouch will physically expand if a worst case electrical overload incident occurs. Pressure relief (also known as out-gassing) during an electrical overload incident may be provided through the use of a “tooth” mounted externally to the cell, either as alternative to or in combination with pressure relief vent feature 309 . The tooth will puncture the cell in a controllable manner if the cell were to expand into contact with it. This tooth is described further below.”), it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of material with an UL 94 V-0 rating for the first and second foam pieces, so as to not burn in the event of electrical overload, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ijaz (US 8409744 B), in further view of Hascoet (US 20160268560 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weicker (US 20190393571 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Ijaz makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the enclosure has a direction of travel, as the claim is directed towards a product, not a process which includes movement, this limitation is interpreted as requiring that the enclosure is configured to travel in a direction. Here, it is not required that a configuration requirement be explicitly disclosed by prior art, but rather that the disclosed structure is capable of meeting the limitations of the requirement. Accordingly, where the energy storage system is shown as a whole unit, presented in Ijaz’s figure 22, Ijaz’s energy storage system is therefore capable of being moved, thereby travelling in a direction. Additionally, it is noted that as Ijaz discloses components which have weight, their energy storage system will move downward as a result of gravity when it is not supported by anything beneath it.
In regards to the limitation which requires least one crumple zone aligned along with the battery module along the direction of travel, Ijaz fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to Weicker, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing an energy storage system which is a vehicle battery (Abstract, “Fluid cooled electric vehicle battery systems are disclosed.”). Here, Weicker discloses structure which comprises a vehicle frame which is an enclosure that retains battery modules within, shown in their figure 1. Here, Weicker further discloses that their enclosure comprises multiple crumple zones, aligned with directions of vehicular travel (Paragraph 0020, “The electric vehicle 100 may further include structural rails 150, a rear crumple zone 160, a front crumple zone 170, and lateral crumple zones 180. The battery pack 140 may have a compact “footprint” and be disposed such that it may be at least partially enclosed by the frame 130. The battery pack 140 may be positioned at a predefined distance from the structural rails 150. In some embodiments, the battery pack 140 may be positioned such that the frame 130, structural rails 150, rear crumple zone 160, front crumple zone 170, and lateral crumple zone 180 protect the battery pack 140 from forces or impacts exerted from outside of the electric vehicle 100, for example, in a collision.”). Here, where Weicker discloses that this structure allows for the protection of the battery from forces or impacts exerted from outside, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of crumple zone structure in the invention of Ijaz, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725