DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 14, and 16, cancelled claims 18-20, and added new claims 21-23; claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 which already recites “a limiting member”; thus, “a limiting member” in claim 4 should recite “the limiting member”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 2017/0025654), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding Claim 1, Oh suggests a battery comprising a battery cell matrix (see e.g. Fig. 7) comprising a plurality of battery cells arranged in M rows (e.g. 5) and N columns (e.g. 2), M and N being integers larger than or equal to 2, each of the battery cells comprising a casing, two end caps arranged along a column direction (Z), and two electrode terminals arranged at the two end caps, respectively, and in the column direction (Z), one electrode terminal of one of two adjacent battery cells being opposite and coupled to one electrode terminal of another one of the two adjacent battery cells (Fig. 7); a reinforcing plate (100, 200, 300, 400, etc.; Figs. 6, and 7 showing reinforcing plate 200, 300 coupled between rows of cells) extending in a row direction (X) and fixed to the casings of the N columns of battery cells, a size of the reinforcing plate in the column direction being smaller than a size of the battery cells in the column direction (Fig. 7), and the reinforcing plate being fixed to the casings of the battery cells in two adjacent rows among the M rows (Fig. 7); and a limiting member (e.g., 120a, connecting to the reinforcing plate by way of wall 114, see e.g., Figs. 1, 3-4A) disposed at a side of the reinforcing plate that is fitted to the battery cells (see e.g., Fig. 6), the limiting member (120a) effectively filling a recessed area formed between the opposite end caps of two adjacent battery cells (Fig. 6) .
Regarding Claim 2, Oh suggests the reinforcing plate (e.g., 200, 300) is one of a plurality of reinforcing plates arranged at intervals in the column direction, Fig. 7.
Regarding Claim 4, Oh suggests the limiting member disposed at a side of the reinforcing plate that is fitted to the battery cells, the limiting member (120a) extending in the row direction (X), the limiting member being located in the electrical coupling area between the battery cells in the two adjacent rows among the M rows (see e.g., Figs. 3, 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Oh suggests the limiting member (120a) extends in the row direction (X, see e.g., Fig. 2 and 4A).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Oh suggests the limiting member comprises two vertical walls (e.g., labelled in annotated Fig. 6, one wall visible in Fig. 3) arranged in parallel and opposite to each other, the vertical walls being coupled perpendicularly to the reinforcing plate (via 114) and parallel to the end caps of the battery cells, and each of the vertical walls being separated from a corresponding one of the end caps by a preset distance, e.g., by a thickness of 120a, see Figs. 3 and 6; the preset distance is a first preset distance. Further, Oh suggests the limiting member (120a) further comprises a transverse wall coupling the two vertical walls, see annotated Figs. 3 and 6; and the transverse wall is separated from the electrode terminals of the battery cells by a second preset distance.
Regarding Claim 9, Oh suggests a plurality of receiving grooves formed at the reinforcing plate, each of the receiving grooves extends in the column direction and is continuously arranged in the row direction, and the receiving grooves are configured to mount the battery cells and are constructed to adapt to surfaces of the battery cells (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Oh suggests the battery cell matrix is one of a plurality of battery cell matrices stacked and arranged in a vertical direction (Y), the reinforcing plate being arranged at a top surface of the plurality of battery cell matrices; the battery further comprises an intermediate support plate disposed between adjacent battery cell matrices for supporting and/or cooling the battery cells; and a reinforcing backplane arranged at a bottom surface of the plurality of battery cell matrices, the reinforcing backplane being constructed as a rectangular plate-like structure with the row direction and the column direction, and being fixed to the casings of the battery cells of the battery cell matrix at a bottom layer, see annotated Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
719
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Oh suggests at least one of the intermediate support plate or the reinforcing backplane is formed with at least one of a limiting member (e.g., 114, 120c, see Fig. 3), receiving grooves, or rib structures.
Regarding Claim 13, Oh does not suggest a thickness of the reinforcing plate or a thickness of the reinforcing backplane ranges from 0.5 mm to 2 mm. The only difference between the prior art and claimed plate is a recitation of the relative dimension (e.g., between 0.5mm and 2 mm); given the plate having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently from the prior art plate, the claimed plate is not patentably distinct from the prior art plate. MPEP 2144.04, A.
Regarding Claim 14, Oh suggest the battery is utilized as an energy source in an electrical device (e.g., electric vehicle, [0109]).
Regarding Claim 16-17, Oh suggests a preparation method of a battery comprising: providing a plurality of battery cells arranged in M rows and N columns as a battery cell matrix, M and N being integers larger than or equal to 2, each of the battery cells comprising a casing, two end caps arranged along a column direction, and two electrode terminals arranged at the two end caps, respectively, and in the column direction, one electrode terminal of one of two adjacent battery cells being opposite and coupled to one electrode terminal of another one of the two adjacent battery cells; providing a reinforcing plate extending in a row direction and fixed to the casings of the N columns of battery cells, a size of the reinforcing plate in the column direction being smaller than a size of the battery cells in the column direction, and the reinforcing plate being fixed to the casings of the battery cells in two adjacent rows among the M rows; and providing a limiting member (114, 120a) at a side of the reinforcing plate that is fitted to the battery cells, the limiting member effectively filling a recessed area formed between the opposite end caps of two adjacent battery cells, wherein the reinforcing plate is one of a plurality of reinforcing plates that are arranged at intervals in the column direction, see figs.
Regarding Claim 21, Oh suggests the limiting member comprises two vertical walls arranged in parallel and opposite to each other, the vertical walls being positioned between the opposite end caps of two adjacent battery cells.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rossberger et al. (WO 201815428), hereinafter Rossberger.
Regarding Claims 22-23, Rossberger suggests a battery (Fig. 1) comprising: a battery cell matrix comprising a plurality of battery cells (30) arranged in M rows and N columns, M and N being integers larger than or equal to 2, each of the battery cells comprising a casing, two end caps arranged along a column direction, and two electrode terminals arranged at the two end caps, respectively, and in the column direction, one electrode terminal of one of two adjacent battery cells being opposite and coupled to one electrode terminal of another one of the two adjacent battery cells; and a reinforcing plate (35) extending in a row direction and fixed to the casings of the N columns of battery cells, a size of the reinforcing plate in the column direction being smaller than a size of the battery cells in the column direction, and the reinforcing plate being fixed to the casings of the battery cells in two adjacent rows among the M rows; wherein a plurality of receiving grooves are formed at the reinforcing plate, each of the receiving grooves extending in the column direction and being continuously arranged in the row direction; and rib structures are formed within the receiving grooves, respectively, the rib structures extending in the column direction and having a length equal to the length of the receiving grooves in the column direction (see annotated Figs. 14). The rib structures are provided at groove bottoms of the receiving grooves, the rib structures being constructed as planes.
PNG
media_image2.png
719
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Oh suggests in the column direction, an electrical coupling area is formed between the opposite endcaps of two adjacent battery cells; the reinforcing plate is arranged to cover the electrical coupling area; and in the column direction, the electrical coupling area has a first width, the reinforcing plates have a second width, and the second width is larger than the first width. Oh does not suggest the second width is larger than the first width by 20 mm to 100 mm. However, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The dimensions of commercial cells are known as evidenced by the technical schematic below from the Battery Size NPL.
PNG
media_image3.png
382
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For example, an 18650 standard battery cell has a length of 65 mm with about 5 mm making up the terminal area. Oh shows plate 200, 300 covers about a quarter of each cell end, thereby suggesting a second width of about less than 32 mm, and the coupling area is greater than 0 mm. Thus, according to standard cell dimensions, the plate suggested by Oh has a second width (e.g., less than 32 mm) greater than the first width (e.g., > 0 mm) by about 32 mm or less, which overlaps with, or is close to, that claimed .It would further be obvious to increase the width of the plate (i.e., second width) in the column direction, thereby further increasing the difference of the second width with respect to the first width, from the standpoint of increasing the contact area between the plate and cells with the expectation of increasing the support area of the cells by the plate, see MPEP 2144.05 I., and II.
Regarding Claim 8, Oh does not suggests the first preset distance and the second preset distance (e.g., thickness of 120a in column direction) are in a range from 1 mm to 3 mm. However, Oh appreciates a compact battery with shorter distances between the cell holders, [0082]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify/minimize the first and second preset distance, thereby approaching the claimed distance from the standpoint of minimizing distances between the cells, thereby reducing the volume of the battery, to achieve a compact battery. Relative dimension are obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Yoshihara et al. (US 20090104516), hereinafter Yoshihara.
Regarding Claim 10, Oh does not suggests rib structures are formed within the receiving grooves, respectively, the rib structures extending in the column direction. However, Yoshihara (US 20090104516) suggests rib structures (40) formed within the receiving grooves, respectively, and help retain the cells and prevent rotation, [0092, 0097, 0100]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize rib structure within the receiving groves of Oh with the expectation of retaining the cells in position and preventing cell rotation. The rib structures, which have a cylindrical three-dimensional shape, necessarily extend in each direction of the three dimensions; thus, are expected to extend in the column direction of Oh.
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights