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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they
do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: On page 6, in paragraph [0019], Fig. 2 is said to have an opening 12h, however, this is not labeled in Fig.2. On the same page, in paragraph [0020], 12b is said to be shown in Fig. 1 and 7-8 however, 12b is not labeled in these drawings. 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. 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the
plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,”
but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a restriction mechanism that applies a restriction load on the rectangular secondary batteries and the porous elastic member from the arrangement direction” in claim 1. The corresponding structure is found in Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0015].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 s/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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites “at least one of the following structures (1)
and (2) is satisfied.” This insinuates that both structures can be present in one embodiment. Claim 1 goes on to describe the first structure where “the porous elastic member includes a gas flow channel…”. The second structure is then described as “a different member is additionally provided between the rectangular secondary battery and the porous elastic member, and the different member includes the gas flow channel…”. These limitations render the claim indefinite as the scope of the limitation is unclear. If both structures are satisfied in one embodiment, it is unclear whether there is one combined gas channel or two gas channels from each structure.
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting that an embodiment satisfying both structures may include either a single combined gas flow channel or two gas flow channels resulting from the two structures present.
Examiner’s note: while breadth is not indefiniteness, it is noted that the number of gas flow channels present in a case where both structures are present is not specified. Therefore, one or two gas flow channels present would satisfy the claim.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites “…a plurality of communication holes that
communicate with outside…” This limitation renders the claim indefinite as the scope of the limitation is unclear. There are multiple outsides possible and it is unclear whether “outside” refers to outside the porous elastic member or outside the secondary battery.
For the purposes of examination, “outside” will be interpreted as any area outside the porous elastic member.
Examiner’s note: while breadth is not indefiniteness, it is noted that the definition of outside is not specified. Therefore, any area outside the porous elastic member would satisfy the claim.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 112(b) for depending upon claim 1 without resolving the issue of indefiniteness.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites “the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the
rectangular secondary battery…” This limitation renders the claim indefinite as the scope of the limitation is unclear. Claim 1 establishes that there is a plurality of batteries, however, here in claim 5, only a singular secondary battery is mentioned. It is not clear whether the limitation applies to all of the plurality of rectangular secondary batteries established in claim 1 or need only apply to one of the rectangular secondary batteries.
For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as saying “…for at least one of the rectangular secondary batteries…”
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.
(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) 1-2, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friedrich (DE 102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation).
With regards to claim 1, Friedrich teaches a battery pack comprising: a plurality
of rectangular secondary batteries that are disposed along a predetermined arrangement direction (Page 31; [0094] and [0096] and Fig. 7); a porous elastic member that is disposed between the rectangular secondary batteries that are adjacent in the arrangement direction (Page 24; [0078], Page 31; [0094], and Page 42; [0117]. The spacer reads on the porous elastic member). Friedrich goes on to teach a restriction mechanism that applies a restriction load on the rectangular secondary batteries and the porous elastic member from the arrangement direction (Page 3-4; [0011] and page 26; [0088]. The housing of the pack reads on the restriction mechanism. See 112f discussion above). Friedrich also teaches that the porous elastic member includes a plurality of communication holes that communicate with outside and is configured to be deformable elastically in the arrangement direction by taking in or discharging gas (Page 18; [0057] - [0058], and [0078]). Friedrich teaches at least one of the following structures (1) and (2) is satisfied: (1) the porous elastic member includes a gas flow channel extending from an outer edge to inside in a state where the porous elastic member is assembled to the battery pack (Page 31; [0096], Fig. 7). In addition, Friedrich teaches (2) a different member is additionally provided between the rectangular secondary battery and the porous elastic member, and the different member includes the gas flow channel extending from the outer edge to the inside on at least a surface that is in contact with the porous elastic member in a state where the different member is assembled to the battery pack (Page 19-20; [0061] - [0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 is shown below:
Regarding claim 2, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1,
wherein the porous elastic member and/or the different member includes a first part and a second part that are disposed apart from each other in at least one direction that is orthogonal to the arrangement direction, and a space between the first part and the second part forms the gas flow channel (page 43; [0118], Fig.17). Fig. 17 is shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
298
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein
the porous elastic member and/or the different member includes a concave part extending from the outer edge to the inside in the state where the porous elastic member and/or the different member is assembled to the battery pack, and the concave part forms the gas flow channel (page 35; [0103] and Fig. 7). Fig. 7 is shown again below:
PNG
media_image3.png
455
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich
also teaches that the spacer is made entirely of plastics such as polyethylene or polypropylene (page 24-26; [0081]). Friedrich does not explicitly teach that the porous elastic member is made of resin however, polyethylene and polypropylene anticipate the resin since they are a species of the resin genus. See MPEP § 2131.02.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE 102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation).
With regards to claim 5, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to
claim 1, wherein the rectangular secondary battery includes a battery case and an electrode body that is accommodated in the battery case (page 2; [0007]). Friedrich shows in Fig. 13 that in the battery case, an exterior body including a bottom wall, a pair of first side walls extending from the bottom wall and opposing each other, a pair of second side walls extending from the bottom wall and opposing each other, and an opening that opposes the bottom wall, and a sealing plate that seals the opening of the exterior body are joined, the first side wall opposes the porous elastic member. Figs. 13 below shows the battery housing with six walls; However, all walls are
PNG
media_image4.png
555
725
media_image4.png
Greyscale
not visible in this view.
Friedrich does not teach that an area of the first side wall is 20000 mm2 or more in a plan view. However, Friedrich, similar to the applicant, discloses that the battery pack is meant for use in vehicles [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, barring a showing of unexpected results, to adjust the size of the rectangular secondary battery of Friedrich by including a 20000 mm2 area of the first side wall, since different sized vehicles require different sized batteries as mere changes in size or relative dimension present a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
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) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE 102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation) in view of Holman et. al (US 20170237112 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich
does not teach the battery pack wherein the porous elastic member includes a slit extending from the outer edge to the inside in the state where the porous elastic member is assembled to the battery pack, and the slit forms the gas flow channel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Holman teaches a battery pack comprising a porous elastic member disposed between rectangular secondary batteries. Holman also shows that the porous elastic member includes a slit extending from the outer edge to the inside in the state where the porous elastic member is assembled to the battery pack, and the slit forms the gas flow channel
PNG
media_image5.png
862
869
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
849
862
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 4). Fig. 2 and 4 are shown below:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include a slit, as shown in Holman, to the porous elastic member of Friedrich as this allows a substantial portion of the external surface of the cells to be exposed to air flow for cooling the electrochemical cells.
Regarding claim 6, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 5. Friedrich
is silent with respect to a ratio of an area of the porous elastic member to the area of the first side wall. However, Friedrich teaches that the contact of the heat medium with the cells is such that at least 50% of the respective cell wall comes into direct contact with the heat medium [0019].
In a similar field of endeavor, Holman teaches a battery pack comprising a porous elastic member disposed between rectangular secondary batteries. Holman goes on to teach that a ratio of an area of the porous elastic member to the area of the first side wall is 50% or more in the plan view ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to recognize that allowing at least 50% of the porous member taught by Friedrich to be in contact with the first side wall, as taught by Holman, enables the spacer to exert a preload on designated portion or portions of the electrochemical cell while cooling the cell.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedrich (DE
102018133004 A1, Translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holman et. al (US 20170237112 A1) and American Elements (Iron wool. Properties [online]. American Elements, 2021 [retrieved on 11-13-2025]. Retrieved from the internet: https://www.americanelements.com/iron-wool-7439-89-6.)
Regarding claim 7, Friedrich teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Friedrich
does not teach that a porosity of the porous elastic member is 10 to 90 vol% as Friedrich does not teach a specific porosity prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Holman (discussed in more detail above) teaches a porous elastic member made of steel wool or stainless-steel wool; Holman also teaches that the porous elastic member can be formed from a porous elastic polymer [0028]. Holman goes on to teach that the porosity of the spacer can be specifically engineered [0029]. However, Holman does not teach the specific porosity of the porous elastic member. According to American Elements, a manufacturer of engineered materials, iron wool has a high porosity, ranging from 75-95% (page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use a similar range of porosity as taught by American Elements and Holman in Friedrich’s spacer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that including a porous elastic member with such porosity would allow for improved inhalation of air which allows effective heat transfer and adequate swelling and shrinking of the spacer during cycling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743