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 .
Status
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-4 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 5 are examined. The rejection of claim 1 has been modified as required by the amendment.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0157709, hereinafter Umemura.
Regarding claim 1, Umemura teaches a battery pack (Fig 1: 1), comprising:
battery cells (10), each including an electrode body (Fig 2 and 5: 20) and a case (30) accommodating the electrode body (20) in a state sealed by a sealing portion (‘the electrolytic solution is introduced from the injection port provided in the upper surface 30u of the cell case 30 then, the injection port is hermetically sealed’ [0070]), the battery cells (10) being arranged next to one another in an arrangement direction that is a single direction; (‘arranged in the arrangement direction X’ [0034]) and
a spacer (40) arranged between one of two side walls of the case (30) of one of the battery cells (10) and one of two side walls of the case (30) of an adjacent one of the battery cells (10) (Fig 1: spacer 40 between each battery cell 10), wherein
the battery cells (10) are bound together in a state in which a binding pressure acting to force the battery cells toward each other is applied to the battery cells (‘each of the restraining bands 52 is attached so that a prescribed restraining pressure is applied in the arrangement direction X’ [0034]),
the electrode body (Fig 5: 20 in contrast to a cylindrical cell) is a flattened roll ([0013] [0040]) formed by rolling a stack of a positive electrode sheet (12), a negative electrode sheet (14), and a separator (16),
the electrode body (20) includes two opposing flat portions (left and right sides of 20 in contact with 30w), each facing one of the side walls of the corresponding case (30w), and an upper curved portion (top of 20 in contact with 30u) bulged upward (Fig. 5: top of electrode body is curved and bulging upward, in the same manner as described and depicted as the instant specification ‘the upper curved portion 32 has an upwardly bulging shape’ [0060] represented in Figs 3, 5, and 6) and connecting upper edges of the two flat portions (left and right sides of 20 are connected to top and bottom sides of 20),
the spacer (Fig 6: 40) includes a base plate (44) and projections (42) projecting from the base plate (44) toward one of the side walls of the case (30w) of the one of the adjacent battery cells (10),
the projections (42) are equal in height from the base plate (44) (‘plurality of protruding portions 42 protrude to the same height T’ [0048]),
the projections (42) define ventilation passages (‘usable as flow paths for a cooling fluid (typically air)’ [0050]),
the projections (42) include a first projection (421) that is a top projection (Fig 6: topmost projection),
the first projection (421) extends continuously in a seamless manner in a direction parallel to the upper edges of the flat portions (421 extends along plate 40 in a direction parallel to case sides 30w in contact with flat portions),
the first projection (421) presses the one of the side walls of the case of the one of the adjacent battery cells (30w) at a position that is located upward from the upper edge of each of the flat portions where the sealing portion is the closest and corresponds to the upper curved portion (Fig 6-7, ‘the ribs 421, 422, 423 are provided with a length over the entire length in the vertical direction’ [0051]) given that the art teaches “over the entire…vertical direction” this would include above/upward from the upper edge as claimed.
In an effort to expedite prosecution should the above quote from [0051] not be taken to be with respect to the overall vertical of 40 but rather the overall vertical of the assembly body a rejection under 35USC103 is provided as follows.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umemura.
Umemura additionally teaches that the protruding portions 42 are provided so as not to press at least a part of the lower portion of 1/3 from the lower end of the reaction portion 21 of the electrode body 20 in the vertical direction Z. The protruding portions 42 may be provided so as to not press ½ (50%) or more, for example ¾ (75%) or more, of the width W1 of the reaction portion 21 in the lower portion [0052]. In general, the shape, size, and arrangement of the plurality of protruding portions 42 can be appropriately determined according to, for example, required cell characteristics [0049]. Therefore, the placement of the protruding portions is an art recognized result effective variable optimizable according to desired cell characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the placement of the top protruding portion in order to improve the high-rate cycle characteristics [0052] and any other required cell characteristics [0049], as taught by Umemura. In optimizing the top protrusion placement, one would arrive at the claimed relationship, barring evidence to criticality or unexpected results MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally, Umemura teaches that the projections (42) include second projections (422 and 423) that press the side wall at positions corresponding to the two flat portions (30w), and
the second projections (422 and 423) include:
a projection (422) including a parallel portion (leftmost and rightmost portions of 422 are parallel to 421) that is parallel to a rolling axis of the electrode body (20), a vertical portion that is orthogonal to the rolling axis (‘each rib of the ribs 422 extends downward D on the side close to center line My’ [0049]), and a connecting portion connecting the parallel portion and the vertical portion (curved portions of 422 that connect side parallel portions and downward portions); and
a projection (423) that is a parallel portion (parallel to 421).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0157709, hereinafter Umemura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant-Publication No. 2011/0008656 (IDS dated 05/16/2024), hereinafter Tanahashi.
Regarding claim 5, Umemura teaches, as mentioned above, a cell pack included a plurality of unit cells arranged in an arrangement direction. Each unit includes a cell case accommodating an electrode body and an electrolytic solution, and a spacer disposed between two unit cells adjacent to each other (Abstract). The spacers have protruding portions that are T shaped and comb shaped [0049].
However, Umemura fails to explicitly teach when A represents a length of the side wall of the case between a first position corresponding to the upper edge of each of the flat portions and a second position corresponding to a lower edge of each of the flat portion; and B represents a distance from the first position to a position pressed by the top projection near the first position; percentage C of B to A is 4.5% or greater and 13.6% or less.
Tanahashi teaches an assembled battery in which a plurality of unit cells are arranged in an arrangement direction, in a unit container of at least one of the plurality of unit cells and one or more gap-filling members (Abstract). The gap filling members are space retainer plates that have a projected-and-recessed shape in which projected portion and recess portions are alternately formed [0045]. The dimensions of the projected-and-recessed shape may be appropriately changed in accordance with the conditions of use of the assembled battery 100 or the like. For example, when the heat-dissipation characteristic of the assembled battery is desired to be improved, it suffices to use shape retainer plates in which the width dimension and/or the depth dimension of the recess portions 44 is large ([0046], Fig. 2). Therefore, the width and depth dimension of spacers are an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the top projection of Umemura with respect to the flat portion (B/A) in order to improve the heat-dissipation characteristics as taught by Tanahashi. In optimizing the protrusion placement, one would arrive at the claimed relationship, barring evidence to criticality or unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied previously. Because claim 5 relies on claim 1, the applicant’s arguments are considered moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied previously. The limitations for claim 5 remain the same and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights