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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 02/22/2023 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first battery cell of each of the one or more pairs of battery cells comprises a tab that is coupled to a tab of the second battery cell of that pair of battery cells at a location adjacent another outer surface of the casing that is opposite to the outer surface of the casing. It is implied that the connection can happen on the second surface 323 of fig. 9, however no connection is shown and it is not clear to the examiner how or where such tabs could be connected on this surface. This connection must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, a first and second foam in the battery pack as limited by claim 15 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Additionally, No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 13 and 15 make references to first and second battery units. While there is no reference numeral for battery units, battery units are described throughout the specification as the “battery units such as batteries 300” [0096]. Therefore, examiner will interpret battery units to be batteries or battery modules.
Claim 13 also mentions a “polarity orientation.” Examiner’s interpretation of a “polarity orientation” is the manner in which the ways batteries are mounted in a pack that present their positive and negative terminals in a specific way. Therefore, adjacent batteries with opposite polarity orientations will have the adjacent terminals that have opposite polarities.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 4, 12, 13, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “substantially” renders the volume filled by the foam (claims 1, 12, and 18), the pressure exerted by the foam onto the battery cells (claim 4), and the orientation of the second polarity of the second battery unit (claim 13) indefinite. For purpose of examination, so long as a foam fills an unoccupied, internal space of a battery frame, the foam is used to cushion an internal space of said frame, and adjacent cells are arranged in opposite polarities, the prior art will read on claims 1, 4, 12, 13, and 18.
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency on claims 1, 12, or 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buck (U.S. 20070259258).
With respect to claim 1, Buck discloses a battery (10 – unit assembly) (Fig. 1), comprising:
a casing (16) that defines an internal volume (Fig. 1 and 3
wherein the casing (16) is configured to enclose one or more battery cells (12) within a portion of the internal volume of the casing (16) (Fig. 3), and
wherein a foam (18) that substantially fills a remaining portion of the internal volume of the casing (16) is configured to apply a pressure on the one or more battery cells (12) (Fig. 3, [0025]).
While it is not explicitly stated that the foam applies a pressure on the battery cells, applicant is reminded that instances of intended use 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 capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (MPEP [7.37.09]). In this instance, it is stated that the foam (18) positioned between the battery cells (12) and the case (16) (Fig. 3) and is allowed to expand ([0035]), thus the expansion applying a pressure. Therefore, the foam disclosed by Buck is materially capable of exerting a pressure on the battery cells in the claimed manner.
With respect to claim 4, Buck discloses the foam (18) is a closed cell foam applies pressure on the one or more battery cells (12) (Fig. 3, [0035]).
The limitation “to allow an expansion of one or more of the one or more battery cells while maintaining pressure on the battery cells…” is an example of intended use. Applicant is reminded that instances of intended use 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 capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (MPEP [7.37.09]). In this instance, it has already been established that the foam is capable of maintaining a pressure on the battery cells (claim 1). Therefore, the foam disclosed by Buck is inherently structurally capable of allowing cell expansion while maintaining pressure on the cells.
With respect to claims 5-6, Buck does not explicitly disclose the pressure exerted by the foam onto the battery cells. However, applicant is reminded that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this instance, it has already been established in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 that the foam type (closed-cell foam) and location of the foam (interior volume of battery case surrounding cells) of the prior art is identical to that of the applicant’s disclosure, as is the process of injecting the foam to into the case and allowing it to expand around the cells (see rejection of claim 18). Therefore, absent to persuasive evidence to the contrary, the foam of the prior art would inherently exert a pressure on the battery cells in the claimed ranges of greater than 1 MPa (claim 5) and greater than 5 MPa (claim 6).
With respect to claim 18, Buck discloses a method comprising:
obtaining a casing (16) that defines an internal volume (Figs. 1 and 3), and having a plurality of battery cells (12) within a portion of the internal volume of the casing (16) (Fig. 3);
injecting a foam (18) that partially fills a remaining portion of the internal volume of the casing (16) (Fig. 3, [abstract]);
allowing the foam (18) to expand to fill the remaining portion of the internal volume and to apply a pressure on the one or more battery cells (120) (Fig. 3, [0035]); and
providing a battery (10) comprising the casing (16), the plurality of battery cells (12) and the foam (18) for storage of electrical energy (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 19, Buck does not explicitly disclose the pressure exerted by the foam onto the battery cells. However, applicant is reminded that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this instance, it has already been established in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 that the foam type (closed-cell foam) and location of the foam (interior volume of battery case surrounding cells) of the prior art is identical to that of the applicant’s disclosure, as is the process of injecting the foam to into the case and allowing it to expand around the cells (see rejection of claim 18). Therefore, absent to persuasive evidence to the contrary, the foam of the prior art would inherently exert a pressure on the battery cells in the claimed ranges of greater than 1 MPa.
With respect to claim 20, Buck discloses using the battery in a vehicle ([0002]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 3, buck discloses the density of the foam is at least equal to or greater than 0.5 lb/ft3 (0.008 g/cm3), thus encompassing the claimed range of greater than 0.4 g/cm3. Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hettrich (U.S. 20200168959).
With respect to claim 2, Buck discloses wherein the one or more battery cells (12) are pouch cells in contact with and receives the pressure from the foam (Fig. 3), but does not disclose the cells are solid state cell with a flexible pouch.
Hettrich discloses a pouch-type battery cell for use within a battery that uses a compressible fluid or foam ([0006], [0034]) and teaches that the pouch-type cell includes a solid electrolyte and a flexible pouch ([0006]). Hettrich further teaches that a solid electrolyte and flexible pouch make suitable components for a battery cell ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the battery cell disclosed by Buck could have a flexible pouch and solid electrolyte as taught by Hettrich and perform its functions within the battery.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. 20220181727).
With respect to claim 7, Buck discloses in an embodiment that the one or more battery cells (12) comprise stacked cells with internal electrodes (Fig. 3, [0039]), but does not disclose an interconnect busway on an outer surface of the casing connecting cell tabs, wherein the tabs extend through the casing and contacts the interconnect busway.
Park discloses a battery (100 – battery module) comprising battery cells (120) with tabs (126) (Fig. 4) and teaches that the tabs (126) extend through the casing (130 – protective member) to connect to an interconnect busway (140 – bus bar assembly) (Fig. 8). Park further teaches that this allows for the busbar to connect tabs (126) of adjacent cells, while the casing provides protection to the cell bodies (Fig. 8, [0086], [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to allow for the terminals of Buck to be connected to an interconnect busway on a surface of the casing in order to allow for adjacent cell tabs to be connected while protecting the cell body.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of Park as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Nakada (JP 2004055490A, Espacenet translation provided for reference).
With respect to claim 8, modified Buck discloses a battery module (100) with battery cells (12) inside a casing (Fig. 1), but does not disclose the polarity arrangement of the battery cells within the battery.
Nakada discloses battery cells (10) (Fig. 4) and teaches that one or more battery cells (10) comprise one or more pairs of battery cells (top and bottom, labeled), wherein each of the one or more pairs of battery cells (labeled) comprises a first battery cell (labeled) mounted in a first polarity orientation, and a second battery cell (labeled) mounted in a second polarity orientation opposite the first polarity orientation (Fig. 4 – below). Nakada further teaches that this arrangement allows for the connection of the tabs (104 and 105) with the same polarity to the busbars (22) (Fig. 4, [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that a possible arrangement of the battery cells disclosed by Buck could be the arrangement taught by Nakada in order to connect tabs with the same polarities to the interconnect busway.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Negative parallel interconnect busway)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Positive parallel interconnect busway)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second battery cell)][AltContent: textbox (First battery cell)][AltContent: textbox (Pair)][AltContent: textbox (Pair)][AltContent: textbox (Pair)][AltContent: textbox (Pair)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
482
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 10, modified Buck discloses an interconnect busway on the surface of the casing (see rejection of claim 7), but does not disclose the polarity of the interconnect busways.
Nakada discloses battery cells (10) connected by interconnect busways (20/22) (Fig. 4) and teaches that a positive interconnect pathway (labeled) is coupled to the first battery cell (labeled) of each of the pairs of battery cells (labeled) (Fig. 4 – above), and a negative parallel pathway (labeled) is coupled to the second battery cell (labeled) of the pair of battery cells (labeled) (Fig. 4 – above). Nakada further teaches that this arrangement allows the stacked cells formed by the pairs to be connected in series ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that a possible arrangement of the battery cells disclosed by modified Buck could be the arrangement taught by Nakada as a way to connect the stacked pairs of cells in series.
With respect to claim 11, modified Buck discloses a first and second battery cell with tabs connected to an interconnect busway on an outer surface of a casing (see above rejection of claim 8), but does not disclose the first battery cell of each of the one or more pairs of battery cells comprises a tab that is coupled to a tab of the second battery cell of that pair of battery cells at a location adjacent another outer surface of the casing that is opposite to the outer surface of the casing.
Nakada discloses battery cells (10) (Fig. 4) and teaches the first battery cell (labeled) of each of the one or more pairs of battery cells (labeled) comprises a tab that is coupled to a tab of the second battery cell (labeled) of that pair of battery cells (labeled) at a location (22a – convex portion) adjacent another outer surface (Fig. 4 – above). Nakada further teaches that this arrangement allows the stacked cells formed by the pairs to be connected in series ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that a possible arrangement of the battery cells disclosed by modified Buck could be the arrangement taught by Nakada as a way to connect the stacked pairs of cells in series.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of Nakada as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nemoto et al. (U.S. 20090297936).
With respect to claim 9, modified Buck does not disclose of a temperature control element disposed between the first and second battery cells.
Nemoto discloses adjacent pouch cells (1) and teaches temperature control elements (2 – spaces) are between adjacent cells (Fig. 2). Nemoto further teaches that the temperature control elements (2) allow for heat release between the cells ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use a temperature control element between adjacent cells as taught by Nemoto in order to provide heat release between cells.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hua et al. (CN 217444582U, Espacenet translation provided for reference).
With respect to claim 12, Buck discloses a casing (16) that defines an internal volume (Fig. 3),
wherein the casing (16) is configured to enclose one or more battery cells (12) within a portion of the internal volume of the casing (16) (Fig. 3), and
wherein a foam (18) that substantially fills a remaining portion of the internal volume of the casing (16) is configured to apply a pressure on the one or more battery cells (12) (Fig. 3, [0011]).
While it is not explicitly stated that the foam applies a pressure on the battery cells, applicant is reminded that instances of intended use 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 capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (MPEP [7.37.09]). In this instance, it has already been established in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 that the foam type (closed-cell foam) and location of the foam (interior volume of battery case surrounding cells) of the prior art is identical to that of the applicant’s disclosure, as is the process of injecting the foam to into the case and allowing it to expand around the cells (see rejection of claim 18). Therefore, the foam disclosed by Buck is materially capable of exerting a pressure on the battery cells in the claimed manner.
Buck does not disclose the casing and cells are part of a battery pack.
Hua discloses a casing a battery pack (Fig. 1) and teaches that batteries (1 – battery cells) can be part of the battery pack (Fig. 1, [0015]). Hua further teaches that this configuration of a battery pack allows for the housing of a large number of battery cells to be housed within a vehicle ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the batteries of modified Buck could be used in a battery pack as taught by Hua in order to house a large number of battery cells in a vehicle.
[AltContent: textbox (Second battery unit)]
[AltContent: textbox (First battery unit)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
298
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, modified Buck discloses a first battery unit comprising the casing, battery cells and foam (see above rejection of claim 12), but does not disclose of a first and second battery unit within a pack frame.
Hua discloses a first battery unit (labeled) and teaches a second battery unit (labeled) in the pack frame (9 – side plates) with a polarity opposite the first battery unit (labeled) (Fig. 1 - above and 2 (shows polarity)). Hua further teaches that this arrangement allow for more compact connection of battery units ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application has been effectively filed that a first battery unit disclosed by modified Buck could be used in a pack frame with a second battery unit having an opposite polarity orientation in order to allow for a compact connection of adjacent units.
With respect to claim 14, modified Buck discloses the foam is a closed cell foam applies pressure on the one or more battery cells (14) (Fig. 4, [0022])., however does not explicitly disclose the pressure exerted by the foam onto the battery cells. However, applicant is reminded that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). In this instance, it has already been established in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 that the foam type (closed-cell foam) and location of the foam (interior volume of battery case surrounding cells) of the prior art is identical to that of the applicant’s disclosure, as is the process of injecting the foam to into the case and allowing it to expand around the cells (see rejection of claim 18). Therefore, absent to persuasive evidence to the contrary, the foam of the prior art would inherently exert a pressure on the battery cells in the claimed ranges of greater than 1 MPa.
With respect to claim 15, modified Buck discloses a first battery unit comprising the casing, battery cells and foam (see above rejection of claim 12), but does not disclose of a first and second battery unit within a pack frame.
Hua discloses a first battery unit (labeled) and teaches a second battery unit (labeled) in the pack frame (9 – side plates) opposite the first battery unit (labeled) (Fig. 1 and 2). Hua further teaches that this arrangement allow for more compact connection of battery units ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application has been effectively filed that a first battery unit disclosed by modified Buck could be used in a pack frame with a second battery unit opposite the first unit in order to allow for a compact connection of adjacent units.
While the second foam being present in the second battery unit is not disclosed, applicant is reminded that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Further, introducing the foam that is present in the first battery unit disclosed by modified Buck into the second battery unit to produce a pressure is not a new and unexpected result. Additionally, there are no details in applicant’s specification which explains the different between the first and second foam which results in a second pressure being applied to the battery cells of the second unit. Therefore, if the second foam is structurally the same as the first foam, it can inherently perform the intended use of applying a different pressure when in a different structure during operation, due to swelling, impact, etc. Applicant is reminded that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (MPEP [7.37.09]).
With respect to claim 17, Buck discloses the battery pack can be used in a vehicle ([0002]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of Hua as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 20220158270).
With respect to claim 16, modified Buck discloses a battery pack comprising a first battery unit including the casing, the battery cells, and the foam, and a second battery unit (see above rejection of claims 13 and 15), but does not disclose a longitudinal support structure separating rows of first battery units and a row of second battery units.
Lee discloses a battery pack (100) with rows of battery units (200) (Fig. 1) and teaches a longitudinal support beam (410 – partition wall) separates the rows of battery units (200) (Fig. 1). Lee further teaches that the longitudinal support beam (410) supports the battery pack during external impact ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the longitudinal support beam taught by Lee to separate the battery units disclosed by modified Buck in order to support the battery pack from external impact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 (572)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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727