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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language consistency “the other structure” in Line 7 should be replaced with “the at least one other structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language consistency “the other structure” in Line 2 should be replaced with “the at least one other structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language consistency “the other structure” in Line 2 should be replaced with “the at least one other structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: to clearly define the structural relationship between the recited elements, Line 2-3 should be replaced with “further comprising: an automatic pulling system and an attachment mechanism for attaching the cut-out wire to the automatic pulling system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language consistency “the other structure” in Line 2 should be replaced with “the at least one other structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: for claim language consistency “the other structure” in Line 2 should be replaced with “the at least one other structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “an other” in Line 2 should be replaced with “another”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt (US 2020/0243928 A1) as evidenced by Kantas (Commando Wire Saw with Polymer Grip Handles).
Regarding Claim 1, Schmidt discloses a battery pack (see Fig. 5 which shows battery pack including plurality of battery modules 32; Fig. 2 and [0047]/L1-8) having a first battery module (32) and an adhesive (35) configured to bond the first battery module (32) to at least one other structure (cooling means 36 comprising separating element 44), and a cut-out wire (see “commercially available wire saw” in [0029]/L11-18, also see Kantas which shows a commercially available wire saw) wherein the cut-out wire (wire saw) is configured to separate the adhesive between the first battery module (32) and the other structure (cooling means 36 comprising separating element 44, see [0029]).
Regarding Claim 3, Schmidt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Schmidt further discloses wherein the other structure is a cold plate (36 also comprising separating element 44, also see “cooling plate”, [0012]/L41-42), and wherein the adhesive (35) bonds the first battery module to the cold plate (see Fig 2 and [0047]/L1-8).
Regarding Claims 5-6, Schmidt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Further, regarding the limitations “wherein the cut-out wire is installed concurrently with the first battery module” (claim 5) and “wherein the cut-out wire is installed after the first battery module is installed” (claim 6), it is noted that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
While Schmidt is silent on when the cut-out wire is installed, the disclosed battery module of Schmidt comprising the cut-out wire appears to be the same as the battery module claimed in the Instant Application, although it might be produced by a different process.
Regarding Claim 7, Schmidt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Schmidt further discloses wherein at least one handle attached to one or more ends of the cut-out wire (see “commercially available wire saw in [0029]/L11-18) as evidenced by Kantas which shows that commercially available wire saws include handles for better grip and control during use (see “polymer grip handles”).
Regarding Claim 12, Schmidt discloses a battery pack having a separator mechanism comprising at least one battery module (see Fig. 5 which shows battery pack including plurality of battery modules 32; Fig. 2 and [0047]/L1-8), an adhesive bonding the at least one battery module to at least one other structure least one battery module to at least one other structure (see Figs. 3 and 4 which show a battery module 32 configured to bond to a cooling means 36 comprising separating element 44 and [0047]/L1-8) a cut-out wire (see “commercially available wire saw in [0029]/L11-18, also see Kantas which shows a commercially available wire saw) wherein the cut-out wire (wire saw) is configured to separate the adhesive between the first battery module (32) and the other structure (cooling means 36 comprising separating element 44, see [0029]) and at least one handle attached to one or more ends of the cut-out wire (see “commercially available wire saw in [0029]/L11-18) as evidenced by Kantas which shows that commercially available wire saws include handles for better grip and control during use (see “polymer grip handles”).
Regarding Claim 13, Schmidt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Schmidt further discloses wherein the other structure is an other battery or a cold plate and wherein the adhesive bonds the at least one battery module to either the other battery module or the cold plate (see “cooling plate”, [0012]/L41-42, see also where the adhesive (35) bonds the first battery module to the cold plate, Fig 2 and [0047]/L1-8).
Regarding Claim 15, Schmidt teaches a method of removing a battery module (32 and [0029]/L8-10), comprising: placing a wire between the battery module and an adjacent structure (cooling means 36 comprising separating element 44 and [0029]/L11-18); pulling the wire through an adhesive connecting the battery module to the adjacent structure ([0029]/L11-18) and separating the battery module from the adjacent structure ([0029]/L11-18).
Regarding Claim 16, Schmidt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Schmidt further discloses wherein the adjacent structure from which the battery module is separated is one of another battery module or a cold plate (see “cooling plate”, [0012]/L41-42, see also where the adhesive (35) bonds the first battery module to the cold plate, Fig 2 and [0047]/L1-8).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2020/0243928 A1) as evidenced by Kantas (Commando Wire Saw with Polymer Grip Handles) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12, 13, 15, and 16 and further in view of Pan (US 2022/0367958 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Schmidt discloses all the limitations as set forth above.
While Schmidt discloses the battery pack comprising multiple battery modules (the battery arrangement preferably comprises multiple battery modules, [0018]/L24-27) and wherein said multiple battery modules are fixed to each other in advance, for example by suitable screw connections ([0021]/L9-12 and [0049]/L39-40), the reference dose not disclose wherein the adhesive is configured to bond the first battery module to the second battery module.
Pan teaches adhesive is configured to bond the first battery module to the second battery module (see “connecting glue layer between adjacent batteries” [0073]) for the purpose of preventing the relative positions of the batteries from slipping and compressing the battery apparatus for installation (see [0074]/L4-9), as well as allowing for easy cutting with a wire saw (see [0058]/L1-9).
KSR Rationale B (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. In the instant case, Schmidt and Pan disclose known products which serve the same purpose i.e. screws and adhesive to prevent the relative positions of the batteries from slipping and compress the battery apparatus for installation. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adhesive of Pan, rather than screws, to secure to each other the battery modules of Schmidt as doing so would amount to nothing more than substitution of one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claims 4, 8-11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2020/0243928 A1) as evidenced by Kantas (Commando Wire Saw with Polymer Grip Handles) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12, 13, 15, and 16.
Regarding Claims 4, 8, 10, 14, and 17, Schmidt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Schmidt discloses an attachment mechanism for attaching the cut-out wire (claim 4 where the at least one handle is configured to attach the cut-out wire to the automatic pulling system (claim 8), an attachment mechanism for attaching the cut-out wire to the automatic pulling mechanism including two handles, the attachment mechanism including two handles, one attached to each end of the cut-out wire (claim 10), a handle on each end of the cut-out wire (claim 14), (see “commercially available wire saw in [0029]/L11-18) of Schmidt as evidenced by Kantas which shows that commercially available wire saws include handles for better grip and control during use (see “polymer grip handles”).
Schmidt does not disclose attachment to an automatic pulling system (claim 4), an automatic pulling system, (claim 8), an automatic pulling system, (claim 10), wherein the separator mechanism further includes an automatic pulling system such that the automatic pulling system pulls the cut-out wire (claim 14), or wherein pulling the wire through the adhesive occurs via an automatic pulling system (claim 17).
It is noted that providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04.III, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator mechanism of Schmidt such that it includes an automatic pulling system such that the automatic pulling system pulls the cut-out wire since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958); In re Rundell, 9 USPQ 220 (CCPA 1931).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Schmidt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Schmidt further discloses wherein the other structure is a cold plate (36 also comprising separating element 44, also see “cooling plate”, [0012]/L41-42), and wherein the adhesive (35) bonds the first battery module to the cold plate (see Fig 2 and [0047]/L1-8).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Schmidt discloses all the claim limitation as set forth above. Schmidt further teaches wherein the cut-out wire is installed substantially at the installation of the battery module (Col. 9, Lines 17-22). Re. Claim 11, it is noted, that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
While Schmidt is silent on when the cut-out wire is installed, the disclosed battery module of Schmidt comprising the cut-out wire appears to be the same as the battery module claimed in the Instant Application, although it might be produced by a different process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENNAN M STEWART whose telephone number is (571)272-2134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/B.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights