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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because In Fig-$, the inner wall 60 includes an inner vent 92, opposite the outer vent 96 on the outer wall 64. However, it appears as though the inner wall vent 92, is also noted as “96”, when it should be “92” (see below). 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.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
414
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 9-12, 14, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (CN111668410 and its machine translation).
Wang et al disclose a power battery pack for a vehicle (traction battery pack) wherein the battery pack comprises a tray with multiple single batteries set on the tray, with the tray having a main body and at least a portion of the tray main body is formed with a gas channel (enclosure assembly having an inner wall and outer wall spaced from the inner wall), wherein as seen in figure 1, includes a gas channel between the battery cells 200, and also formed between the inner wall in the enclosure adjacent to the battery and the outer wall 20 as required by the instant claim 1 and the instant claim 9 (a plurality of battery cells).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, regarding the instant claim 10, wherein the enclosure tray includes a cover, and the inner and outer wall are portions of the tray ([0061]). The gas channel inner wall includes the inner vents, 30 between the battery cells which remove by-products from the cells to the gas channel as required by the instant claim 11, and through an outer vent to the outside as required by the instant claim 12 ([0067]-[0074]).
The pack also clearly teaches the method of enclosing cells as taught by the method claims for removing byproducts corresponding to the device claims discussed previously, and the method of claims 14, 15, and 18.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-12, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon (2023/0231264).
Jeon disclose a traction battery and vehicle wherein the battery comprises an enclosure with a tray, a plurality of batteries in the enclosure, and a duct member having a space through which gas discharged from the battery cells flow (abstract; instant claim 9). The duct includes a first side plate 266 and second side plate 267, wherein one plate is closure to the outer enclosure than the other, equating to the instantly claimed inner wall and outer wall (instant claim 1). The enclosure includes a cover wherein the duct 260 and side plates 26 and 267 are portions (instant claim 10; figure 1, 5, 6). The duct includes a structure spanning the inner and outer walls (plates as seen in the figures below (instant claims 2, 7), and wherein the duct 260 includes “inner vents”, wherein gas is moved through to the “outer vent” 280 ([0103]-[0108]; figures 8 and 9; instant claims 11, 12).
PNG
media_image3.png
334
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
696
460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The pack also clearly teaches the method of enclosing cells as taught by the method claims for removing byproducts corresponding to the device claims discussed previously, and the method of claims 14-16 and 18.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7, 8, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in view of Huang et al (2021/0320368).
Wang et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a traction battery having an enclosure between and inner wall and outer wall as instantly claimed. The reference teaches that various modifications may be made, but fails to specifically disclose struts spanning between the inner wall and outer wall (in the enclosure assembly/ channel).
Huang et al disclose a traction battery and vehicle, wherein the reference teaches an interior channel between adjacent battery units, wherein the battery box includes reinforcing members spanning between the walls of the channel (see figs 3 and 4, 222, 223). The supporting plates 222 and 223 equate to the struts spanning between the two walls (see arrow wherein the support plate extends in a series of connected diagonal plates spanning from one side to the other (each wall 221) as required by the instant claim 2 in a non-perpendicular manner as required by the instant claim 4 ([0068], [0069], [0074]).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
512
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The diagonal connected plates form a structure equating to a corrugated material as required by the instant claim 5, which is welded and secured directly to the walls 221 as required by the instant claims 7 and 8 ([0070]).
The addition of thew reinforcing plates improves the structural strength of the battery, ensuring a firmness and stability of the battery in the vehicle ([0069]) in open cavities/ channels to add a lightweight strengthening structure without adding the size of the pack.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the device of Wang et al, choosing to reinforce the battery pack structure with the lightweight reinforcing plates in the open channels as taught by Huang et al to provide lightweight structural support without increasing the size and weight of the battery which decreases the energy consumption and improves the vehicle performance.
Including the supports in the channels adjacent to the exterior walls of the battery box of Wang et al would improve the structural stability of the battery. The pack also clearly teaches the method of enclosing cells as taught by the method claims for removing byproducts corresponding to the device claims discussed previously, and the method of claim 16.
With respect to the instant claim 19, Wang et al disclose inner vents 31 on interior walls as seen in figure 6A and preferably 6B wherein both vents 40 are on one side, wherein the walls are between cells, but would also but between the valves/ outer vent 40, and the interior of the enclosure, and reasonably be considered on the opposite side of the enclosure from each vent 40. Additionally, figure 9C demonstrates the vents 40 on an underside oof the battery pack, and inner vents 31 on the walls closer to the upper side and cover of the battery, which would also teach one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the device with the outer vents and inner vents on opposite sides of the enclosure.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in view of Huang et al, and in further view of Von Benda et al (5,563,006).
Wang et al in view of Huang et al has been discussed above. The references teach a battery pack comprising an enclosure having a plurality of batteries and an inner wall and outer wall spaced from one another. The combined teachings of the references further teach diagonal metal support structured in the gas channels to provide additional support and strength to the pack, however, the reference fails to teach perforated sheets.
Von Benda et al disclose a battery wherein the pack includes a support structure having a corrugated design, wherein the reference teaches the support structures may have perforations (column 3, lines 61-67).
Given that such support structures are known to have perforations based on user design and preference, and that the Wang et al in view of Huang et al references teach support structures that are includes in open passageways in the a pack, and between the inner wall and outer wall of the pack to move gas through to the outside, and wherein pack weight is a consideration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the device of Wang et al in view of Huang et al, wherein the metal plate support structures in the channels are perforated to allow gas to pass through the pack to the outside via the valve and to decrease the weight of the support structures. The resultant material would also meet the limitations of the instant claims 3, 6, 13, and 17.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9-15, 18, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/155404 (reference application; PGPub 2024/0079717). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘404 application claims a battery pack enclosure comprising a plurality of batteries, wherein the pack comprises a first beam and a second beam establishing a passageway for removing vent byproducts from the cells via inner vents and through to the outside through an outer vent, wherein the passages way would include a beam/ wall closer to the outer edge of the enclosure and a beam closer to the inner portion of the enclosure, thereby teaching the claimed invention. The application further claims an enclosure cover, and vents/ openings in location reasonably considered as opposite the enclosure for the vents, wherein the passage ways extend along across the pack. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to prepare the device and perform the method of the ‘404 application, wherein the resultant device and method also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-8, 16, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 6, 14 of copending Application No. 18/155404 in view of Huang et al. The ‘404 reference further claim a cross-member assembly 54 with perforations/ vents 98 to provide structural support in the passageway, but fails to teach that the assembly spans the inner and outer wall. However, as discussed above the Huang et al reference teaches an advantageous support structure for battery passageways wherein the support spans the inner and outer wall, is welded, and has a corrugated structure.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to prepare the device and perform the method of the ‘404 application in view of Huang et al, wherein the resultant device and method also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722