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 Status
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks submitted 9/8/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 20 have been amended. Support for claims 1 and 13 is found in the formula of claim 6. Support to claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 17, 18 and 20 are to correct dependency, grammar or Lack of antecedent basis.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Seki et al. (US 2020/0411819 A1).
As to claims 1 and 13 , Seki et al. discloses a vehicle [004] comprising a battery pack (11), comprising:
a box body (12-battery case) comprising a mounting space (figure 1a-space where batteries 14 are located);
a cell array disposed in the mounting space and comprising a plurality of battery cores (14 rectangular cell) arranged in a first direction, and the first direction being parallel to a thickness direction of the battery cores (figure 1);
an adjustment shim set (19 and 20) comprising at least one adjustment shim and disposed in the mounting space on a first side of the cell array in the first direction (figure 1a); and
a first wedge-shaped (16) member being disposed in the mounting space on a second side of the cell array in the first direction, to press the cell array and the adjustment shim set [0032],
wherein a number of at least one adjustment shim (19 and 20) of the adjustment shim set is configured to generate a pressure on the cell array in the mounting space to reach a pre-tightening force according to at least a stiffness of the at least one adjustment shim [[0037] (since the wedge member is to press against the endplate, the stiffness of the adjustment shim would be considered, the material would have to be cause the movement of the endplate thus the stiffness coefficient would be considered).
As to claim 2 and 14, Seki et al. discloses a thickness of the first wedge-shaped member (16) decreases along a direction from a top portion of the box body to a bottom portion of the box body (see figure 1a).
As to claim 11, Seki discloses a height of the first wedge-shaped member is equal to a height of the cell array (Figure 1a).
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) 1-3, 5-9, 12-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuchi et al. (US 2009/0239137) in view of Kawase et al. (US 20100190049 A1).
As to claims 1 and 13, Kakuchi et al. discloses a vehicle [0005] comprising a battery pack (1 battery module), comprising:
a box body (90 housing) comprising a mounting space (location of cells -figure 10);
a cell array disposed in the mounting space and comprising a plurality of battery cores 1A-1Z), Figure 10 arranged in a first direction, and the first direction being parallel to a thickness direction of the battery cores(figure 10);
a first wedge-shaped member (200) being disposed on a second side of the cell array in the first direction in the mounting space on a first side (right side), to press the cell array .
Kakuchi et al. does not disclose the adjustment shim set disposed on the first side.
Kawase et al. discloses a battery stack and teaches the addition of the length adjusting means (40) comprising spacer sheets (42) (figure 6). Kawase further teaches three spacer sheets are used as the spacer member 40, but the thickness of the spacer member 40 (total thickness of the spacer sheets) can be adjusted and the spread in stacking direction length L1 per each stacked body can be converged (absorbed) by increasing or decreasing the number of the spacer sheets used. [0070] by adjusting the number of sheets the desired pressure can be achieved [0071]. Kawase further discloses that the spacer member 40 is not particularly limited and various materials (metallic materials, resin materials, ceramic materials, and the like) can be used, provided that they can demonstrate the length adjusting function [0040].
Hence Kawase teaches an adjustment shim set comprising at least one adjustment shim (40, 42) and disposed in the mounting space on a first side of the cell array in the first direction (all located on one side of the stack); and the adjustment shim set, wherein a number of adjustment shims of the adjustment shim set is configured to generate a pressure on the cell array in the mounting space to reach a pre-tightening force [0071] according to the stiffness coefficient of the at least one adjustment shim (as the material has to be considered in order to apply the force on the cells).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the spacer sheets (42) of Kawase into the stack of Kakuchi because this would allow the desired pressure to be achieved.
As to claims 2 and 14, Kakuchi discloses a thickness of the first wedge-shaped member (200)decreases along a direction from a top portion of the box body to a bottom portion of the box body (figure 10).
As to claims 3 and 15, modified Kakuchi discloses an inner wall of the box body comprises an box inclined surface (93) and a box vertical surface (92) opposite to each other in the first direction (figure 10 of Kakuchi), the first wedge-shaped member comprises a first fitting inclined surface (right side of wedge) and a first fitting vertical surface (a left side of wedge), the first fitting inclined surface is attached to the box inclined surface (figure 10), and the adjustment shim set is attached to the box vertical surface or the first fitting vertical surface (the combination of references would place the sheets along the vertical side of the casing).
As to claims 5 and 17, Modified Kakuchi discloses the number of the at least one adjustment shim (sheets 42) is configured such that a sum of a thickness of the adjustment shim set and a thickness of the cell array reaches a predetermined thickness (abstract of Kawase et al), and
Thus the modification would allow for the first wedge-shaped member to be configured such that a distance between the first fitting vertical surface and the box vertical surface reaches the predetermined thickness.
As to claims 6 and 18, Modified Kakuchi discloses the initial thickness of the cell array before being pressed is measured (L1), [0013] the spacer member (40) is selected hat has a thickness suitable to compensate the length and the pressure [0070] Thus while Modified Kakuchi does not disclose the formula, modified Kakuchi does use the variables to adjust the number of sheet to obtain the pressure desired [0070]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed has envisioned adjusting the amount of shims/sheets to obtain the thickness and force of the battery pack and yield a battery with the desired stack length and pressure.
Furthermore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
As to claims 7 and 19, Kakuchi discloses a fixing member (201) connected with the box body to fix the first wedge-shaped member in the mounting space (see figure 10).
As to claims 8 and 20, Kakuchi discloses the fixing member 201 comprises a bolt/screw, the box body comprises a screw hole [0083](since the screw passes through there is a hole in the body), the first wedge-shaped member comprises a fixing hole, the bolt passes through the fixing hole to fit with the screw hole [0083](since the screw passes through there is a hole in the body), but is silent to one side of the fixing hole away from the cell array is recessed to avoid the bolt. However providing a recess to accommodate a bolt is known to when using screws and is a design choice.
When a work is available in one field, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in another. KSR at 1396. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Id. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill. Id.
As to claim 9, Kakuchi discloses the screw entering from the side of the box and not vertically or multiple screws as instantly claimed.
However, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In this case the addition screws would further secure the wedge in position.
Also, The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In this case the screws would still fix the wedge to the housing.
As to claim 12, Kakuchi discloses a tightening member (100), wherein the box body comprises a bottom plate(91) and side plates (92, 93, see annotated figure below) surrounding a periphery of the bottom plate, and the bottom plate and the side plates together define the mounting space
PNG
media_image1.png
458
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; and the side plates comprise a first side plate and a second side plate opposite to each other in the first direction (see above annotated figure), and the tightening member is arranged on the top portion of the box body and connects the first side plate and the second side plate [0062].( A screw 100A as an example of the housing fixing member 100 is tightened to the first fixing plate 92 through the support 70, thereby securing the support 70 to the first fixing plate 92. A screw 100B as another example of the housing fixing member 100 is tightened to the second fixing plate 93 through the support 70, thereby securing the support 70 to the second fixing plate 93.)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuchi et al. (US 2009/0239137) in view of Kawase et al. (US 20100190049 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2017/0110695 A1).
As to claim 10, Modified Kakuchi disclose the wedge but not the weight reduction holes as claimed.
Nishikawa et al. discloses a battery pack and teaches the use of recess to reduce the weight [0046] of an endplate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the recess to the wedge because this reduce the weight of the wedge.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). In this case the reduction of material would reduce weight and cost of the material which reduce the cost of the battery module.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuchi et al. (US 2009/0239137) in view of Kawase et al. (US 20100190049 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Nakashima et al. (US 20210296745)
As to claims 4 and 16. Modified Kakuchi discloses the first wedge-shaped member comprises a first fitting inclined surface and a first fitting vertical surface, an inner wall of the box body comprises a box vertical surface opposite to a box inclined surface in the first direction , and the adjustment shim set is attached to the box vertical surface or the first fitting vertical surface.
Modified Kakuchi does not a second wedge-shaped member disposed in the mounting space between the first wedge-shaped member and the box body, the second wedge-shaped member comprises a second fitting inclined surface, , the box vertical surface is on the first side of the cell array away from the second wedge- shaped member, the first fitting inclined surface is attached to the box inclined surface.
Nakashima et al. disclose a battery pack and discloses the use of two wedges 31 and 50 in order to apply pressure (abstract- the tapered member is inserted to exert the restraining pressure on the battery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include a second wedge member disposed in the box battery which has an inclined surface because this further would exert restraining pressure on the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Kawase discloses that the number of spacer sheets is selected to increase the length and not the stiffness coefficient of the cell array or the stiffness coefficient of the at least one adjustment shim.
Kawase states that the material of the spacer member is used to provide the length adjusting function [0060]. Since the material while not limited would need to be considered , this would inherently include the stiffness of the material, which is used to adjust the length of the stack. So which ever material is used, a stiffness coefficient of the adjustment shim would have to be considered and taken into account to generate the pressure to reach a pre-tightening force.
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 MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727