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 submitted 03/07/2023 were received and are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the air inlet" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (U.S. 20220344741).
With respect to claim 1, Zeng discloses a battery block fixing device for an energy storage power supply (1 – battery pack) (Fig. 1), comprising an A housing (11 – top surface), wherein a handle (12) is fixedly mounted on a top of the A housing (11) (Figs. 1 and 6, [0072]), a bottom of the A housing (11) is provided with a B housing (22 – bracket)), a C housing (22), a D housing (22) and an E housing (12 – bottom surface) in sequence (Fig. 6), and the A housing (11), the handle (12), the B housing (22), the C housing (22), the D housing (22) and the E housing (12) are all detachably connected (Fig. 6).
It is noted by the examiner that Fig. 6 does not show a C housing, merely showing two housings (22) for cell groups (20) stacked sequentially. However, Zeng is clear in its disclosure that there can be more than two cell groups (20) stacked sequentially as shown in Fig. 6, and therefore, would include another housing (22) ([0064]), thus reading on a C housing.
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(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radovich et al. (U.S. 20220384889).
With respect to claim 2, Zeng discloses the D housing (22) comprises a placing box (22) (Fig. 6), a top housing (221) is fixedly mounted on a bottom housing (222 – second bracket5), the placing box (22) is internally provided with a fixing member (220 – accommodating hole), and the fixing member (220) is internally provided with batteries (21) arranged in array (Figs. 6-8), one side of the placing box (222) are fixedly mounted with heat dissipation members (53 - fan) (Fig. 14, [0089]), the top housing (222) is fixedly mounted on a bottom of the C housing (22), and the bottom housing (221) is fixedly mounted on a top of the E housing (12 (Fig. 6, see above note in claim 1 for details regarding C housing)).
Zeng does not disclose that the placing box is connected to a top housing on top and a bottom housing on the bottom or that the left and right side of the housing are provided with heat dissipation means.
Radovich discloses a placing box (106 – leg members), a top housing (104 – support member), a bottom housing (102 – support member), and heat dissipation means (162 – fans) (Figs. 4A and 6) and teaches that the top of the placing box (104) is connected to the top housing (104), the bottom of the placing box (106) is connected to the bottom housing (102), and that the heat dissipation means (162) can be on both a left and right side of the placing box (106) (part of cell assembly 18) (Fig. 4A and 6). Radovich further teaches that this arrangement promotes airflow throughout the housing via the lateral sides of the housing ([0208]).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to modify the placing box and heat dissipation means disclosed by Wang using the arrangement taught by Radovich in order to promote airflow throughout the housing via the lateral sides of the housing.
With respect to claim 7, modified Zang discloses the heat dissipation means (162) comprises a fan (162) fixedly mounted on the left and right side of the placing box (106) (see above rejection of claim 2), but does not disclose the heat dissipation means comprises fan covers (562), that the fan (561) is arranged between the fan cover (562) and the side of the placing box (51), and an avoiding opening (563) extends through a surface of the fan cover (562), or an air inlet (512) communicates with the placing box (5 1) and the fan cover (562).
Radovich discloses a heat dissipation means (162 – fans) and teaches the heat dissipation means includes a fan (162) arranged between a fan cover (labeled) and the side of the placing box (106) (via cell group 18) (Fig. 2 - above and 6), and an avoiding opening (labeled) extends through a surface of the fan cover (labeled) (Fig. 2 – above). Radovich further teaches that this heat dissipation means arrangement circulate airflow within the housing ([0207]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the heat dissipation means disclosed by modified Zang included the fan cover and avoiding opening taught by Radovich in order to circulate airflow within the housing.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. in view of Radovich et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Seki et al. (U.S. 20200411819).
With respect to claim 3, modified Zang discloses an inner wall of the bottom placing box (222) is integrally formed with a bracket (labeled) (Fig. 8 – above), but does not disclose the left and right sides of the placing box define air inlets extending through the left and right sides, left and right side walls of the placing box are fixedly mounted with wedge block, and top surfaces of the wedge blocks are inclined surfaces, the two wedge blocks are staggered from each other in a vertical direction, and front and rear sides of the bottom housing define strip grooves arranged in arrays.
Radovich discloses a placing box (106) and teaches air inlets (126 – gaps) extending through the sides of the placing box 106 (Figs, 6 and 8’ [0201], [0209]), and that the front and rear sides of a housing (814) can include strip grooves (950 – air flow tunnels) arranged in arrays (Fig. 28, [0230]). Radovich further teaches that the air inlets and strip grooves allow for airflow through the housing for the batteries ([0209],[0230]).
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 air inlets and strip grooves taught by Radovich to the housing disclosed by modified Zang in order to allow for airflow through the housing for the batteries.
Neither Zang nor Radovich teaches the presence of wedges in a battery housing.
Seki discloses a battery pack (11) with a housing (12) and teaches the implementation of wedge blocks (19 – wedge members) (Fig. 1A). Seki further teaches that the wedge members help to apply a compressive force to the cell stack to suppress expansion ([abstract]).
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 wedge block taught by Seki in the battery housing disclosed by modified Zang in order to apply a compressive force to the cell stack to suppress expansion.
Although in this instance, the wedge block disclosed by Seki have inclined surfaces at the bottom rather than the top, and they are not staggered in a vertical direction, such limitations are only geared to the arrangement of the wedge blocks to implement them along with certain parts of the battery housing. Applicant is reminded that the arrangement of parts are unpatentable unless the shifting of position modifies the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this instance, the purpose of the wedge blocks to create compression on the battery stacks is the same between the prior art and instant application, therefore their difference of arrangement would not modify their operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 4, none of the cited prior arts teaches a fixing plate wherein a left side is inclined upward, a right side is inclined downward, wherein the left and right sides are butted against two wedge blocks, wherein the left side includes a through hole. There is no obviousness motivation to change the shapes of the fixing plates to read on these limitations, as an inclined shape would change the shape of the overall battery pack, and the through hole would serve no purpose. After further search and consideration, no prior art was found that reads on these limitations with a motivation to combine, therefore claim 4 is allowable.
Clams 5-6 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 4.
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
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727