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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim interpretation
Claim 1 recites a “lifting device” which appears to be separate from the claimed battery module, and which applicant has not further defined except via function. Accordingly, this limitation is not given patentable weight, and examiner additionally notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation claimed language, anything which lifts the battery module while coming into contact with the support surface could reasonably be considered the claimed lifting device, including, for example, a human actor.
Regarding several claims (e.g. claims 1, 2, 4) contain terms such as “horizontal”, “lower”, “under”, “upper”, “vertical”, etc. which refer to the gravity field and/or a direction of observation of the claimed battery module. However these terms to not meaningfully differentiate from merely indicating different directions relative to each other (e.g. vertical is perpendicular to horizontal, lower is opposite from upper) because the orientation of the claimed battery module in the gravity field and the direction it is observed from are subjective and do not depend on the structure of the battery module itself as claimed.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petersen (US 20160315300 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Petersen discloses a battery module (abstract, fig. 2) comprising
a cell stack provided by stacking a plurality of battery cells [0046]; and
a module housing accommodating the cell stack (module housing can be seen in fig. 2, see for example side walls 62 and end plates 60); and
a lifting support portion disposed on the module housing and having a support surface in surface contact with a lifting device ([0051] discloses a slot 76 which may receive a lifting tool, and [0055] discloses a through-hole 78 which a lifting tool may be inserted into, these are visible in fig. 3. As can be seen in fig. 3, these parts are provided on the end plate of the module housing, and have a surface in contact with a liftin device, and therefore can be considered the claimed lifting support portion. Fig. 3 is provided below, as is fig. 5a, which shows the perspective of fig. 3, including the lifting device:
PNG
media_image1.png
390
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
385
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
),
wherein a lower portion of the support surface is connected to a central reinforcing rib extending vertically to increase rigidity of the support surface ([0051] discloses that the slot 76 which receives the lifting tool extends between an underside 77 of the bent portion 74 of the tab 70 and a top face 79 of the inner shell 68, as can be seen in figs 3 and 5A. In this case, the lower surface of the bent portion 76 is the part which comes into physical contact with the lifting device, and may be considered the claimed lower portion of the support surface. As can be seen in fig. 3 and is disclosed by [0051], the lower portion of the support surface is connected to a tab 69 of the retention bar 72, which is welded to the bent portion 74 and may reasonably be considered the claimed central reinforcing rib, satisfying the limitations of the instant claim 1. Additionally, side portions 81 provide additional structure to the lifting support portion/through hole 81, and are formed around the center of lifting support portion/through hole 81, and as a result may also be considered a central reenforcing rib.
While the tab 69/side portion 81 would provide additional structural support and as a result surely serve the function of increasing rigidity of the support surface, examiner notes that the recitation "to increase rigidity” is functional language and imparts intended use to the structural features of the apparatus. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language is of no patentable weight because it is directed to what it does, and not directed to the structural features of the apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g))).
Regarding claim 2, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 1, wherein the support surface is provided as a horizontal surface (as can be seen in fig. 3, the support surface, or the lower surface of part 74, is provided as a horizontal surface), and a lower portion of the support surface has an open structure (as can be seen in fig. 5A, the lower portion of the support surface has an open structure 76 (through which the lifting device can be inserted)).
Regarding claim 3, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 1, wherein the lifting support portion comprises a space portion exposed externally on the module housing (in this case, the slot 76 and/or through-hole 78 may be considered the space portion, as can be seen in fig. 3, these portions are exposed externally on the module housing).
Regarding claim 4, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 3, wherein the space portion comprises:
an inner space provided under the support surface and configured to fit a contact portion of the lifting device in the inner space (as can be seen in fig. 3, slot 76 has an inner space provided under the support surface which is configured to fit a contact portion of the lifting device. Additionally, the through-hole 84 may also be considered an inner space provided under a support surface spanning the rim of the through-hole that comes into contact with the lifting device, see fig. 5A); and
an upper open space provided by penetrating through an outer end of the support surface in a vertical direction and configured to fit a vertical extension portion of the lifting device extending in the vertical direction from one end of the contact portion of the lifting device in the upper open space (as indicated in the claim interpretation section above, terms such as “upper” and “lower” are subjective and determined by what direction the battery module is placed or the orientation of the viewer. In this case, it can be interpreted that the space which in fig. 5A is depicted as above the through-hole 78 is the claimed upper open space, which is provided by penetrating through an outer end of the support surface (through-hole 78) in a vertical (up and down, relative to the perspective of the figure) direction from one end of the contact portion of the lifting device in the upper open space. However, from another matter of perspective, it could also be considered that, for example, the area to one side (in a left-right direction, relative to Fig. 5A) of the slot 76 is the claimed upper open space, with the area to the other side being the inner space, wherein the support surface could be defined as, for example a ridge or end of the surface 74 that comes into contact with the lifting device, where the slot 76 itself forms a hole which provides the claimed penetration through an outer end of the support surface, with the vertical direction in this instance being depicted in fig. 5A as being in the left-right direction) and configured to fit a vertical extension portion of the lifting device extending in the vertical direction from one end of the contact portion of the lifting device in the upper open space (both in regards to though-hole 78 and slot 76, the part though which the lifting device passes can be considered the part which is configured to fit the vertical extension portion of the lifting device, extending in a vertical (up/down relative to fig. 5A regarding the through-hole, or in a left-right direction relative to fig. 5A regarding the slot 76),
wherein the inner space and upper open space communicate with each other (in both instances there is a hole or slot through which communication from one end (inner space) to the other end (upper open space) is possible.
Regarding claim 5, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 4, wherein the upper open space is respectively provided on both sides of the inner space, in such manner that a pair of lifting devices enters (examiner notes that the limitation regarding a pair of lifting devices entering is directed to a process or method of use of a product, rather than to the product (The battery module) itself and its structural features. The courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 277 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173, USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324).
Moreover, as addressed in the claimed interpretation section above, the limitation of “lifting device” is not given patentable weight, and examiner additionally notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation claimed language, anything which lifts the battery module while coming into contact with the support surface could reasonably be considered the claimed lifting device, including, for example, a human actor. In the case of the instant claim, examiner notes that the slot 76 has an opening on either side of the inner space, which could be interpreted as leading to the claimed upper open space. Additionally, the structure of the inner space and is such that a pair of “lifting devices”, either mechanical in nature such as exemplified by Petersen, or a different conceptualization, such as fingers attached to a human actor, could enter the inner space from both ends to apply a lifting force. Therefore, the battery module itself is found to possess the necessary structure to satisfy the limitations of the instant claim).
Regarding claim 6, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 5, wherein the central reinforcing rib is deposed on a center of the inner space (as can be seen in fig. 3, the reinforcing rib/tab 69 is disposed on a center of the inner space/slot 76).
Regarding claim 7, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 6, wherein the module housing comprises a module case accommodating the cell stack (see fig. 2) and an end plate disposed on front side and rear side of the module case (fig. 2 shows two end walls 60 which correspond to the claimed end plates disposed on front and read sides of the module case), and the central reinforcing rib is formed in parallel with a reinforcing rib provided on the end plate (as can be seen in fig. 3, the central rib/tab 69 extends some length in a direction which is depicted in the figure as a horizontal, or left/right, direction. Additionally, as can be seen in the figure, the end plate possesses segments formed in a similar (horizontal) direction, which could be considered a second reinforcing rib provided on the end plate. Because both extend in a parallel horizontal direction, they can be considered formed in parallel to each other. An annotated fig. 3 is provided below which indicates the reinforcing rib).
PNG
media_image3.png
388
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Peterson discloses the battery module of claim 1, wherein the module housing comprises a module case accommodating the cell stack (see fig. 2) and an end plate disposed on front side and rear side of the module case (fig. 2 shows two end walls 60 which correspond to the claimed end plates disposed on front and read sides of the module case),
the module case is configured to cover an upper surface of the end plate (retention bar 72 (visible in fig. 2 and fig. 3) is reasonable considered part of the module case, as it is formed integrally with the top side 90 ([0054], also visible in fig. 5a). As can be seen in fig. 3, the tab 69 of the retention bar 72 covers an upper surface of the end plate), and
the module case and the upper surface of the end plate are fastened to each other ([0051] discloses that the tab 69 of the retention bar is welded to the bent portion of tab 74, reasonable reading as fastening to the end plate).
Regarding claim 9, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 8, wherein a connector is disposed on an upper surface of the module case (the instant claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The description “connector” is broad, and encompasses any part which facilitates any kind of connection, including either electrically or mechanical in nature. For example, [0048] discloses and fig. 2 depicts one or more bus bar modules 75, which electrically connect the battery cells. As can be seen in fig. 2, they are disposed on an upper surface of the battery module).
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) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 20160315300 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Petersen is silent regarding a battery module wherein a thickness of the support surface in a front-rear direction has a value of 5 mm to 8 mm, and a width of the support surface in a left-right direction has a value of 10 mm to 30 mm. Petersen does not provide any lengths, widths, or other dimensions for the disclosed battery module. However, battery modules of varying sizes and shapes are known in the art, such as, for example, larger battery modules which are used when increased power is required, or smaller battery modules used when lower power is required.
Modifying the dimensions of a battery module according to the needs of the manufacturer in order to create a battery module suited for the particular purpose it is being designed for would be a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art. Due to a lack of criticality and unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the support surface of Petersen by incorporating a thickness of the support surface in a front-rear direction has a value of 5 mm to 8mm, and a width of the support surface in a left-right direction has a value of 10 mm to 30 mm in order to, for example, provide improved structural integrity, and the right amount of structural support to the lifting support portion for the size of battery module that is being produced.
Regarding claim 11, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 10, but is silent regarding a battery module wherein a thickness of a portion front-rear direction, on which the lifting device contacts the support surface, has a value of 5 mm or more, and a width of the portion in a left-right direction has a value of 10 mm or more. Petersen does not provide any lengths, widths, or other dimensions for the disclosed battery module. However, battery modules of varying sizes and shapes are known in the art, such as, for example, larger battery modules which are used when increased power is required, or smaller battery modules used when lower power is required.
Modifying the dimensions of a battery module according to the needs of the manufacturer in order to create a battery module suited for the particular purpose it is being designed for would be a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art. Due to a lack of criticality and unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a thickness of a portion front-rear direction, on which the lifting device contacts the support surface, to a value of 5 mm or more, and a width of the portion in a left-right direction to value of 10 mm or more, in order to, for example, provide improved structural integrity to the end plate and the right amount of structural support to the lifting support portion for the size of battery module that is being produced.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 20160315300 A1) in view of Fan (WO 2018087682 A1, US 20200083502 A1 is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 12, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 1, wherein the module housing comprises a module case accommodating the cell stack (see fig. 2) and an end plate disposed on front side and rear side of the module case (fig. 2 shows two end walls 60 which correspond to the claimed end plates disposed on front and read sides of the module case). Petersen does not disclose that the end plate is provided with a reinforcing rib having a quadrangular grid shape formed in vertical and horizontal directions, however such an end plate structure was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Fan discloses a battery pack (title, fig. 1c), provided with a plurality of cells, housing/a module case to contain the battery cells, and two end plates (Fig. 1c), wherein the end plates 107/109 are provided with reinforcing rib having a quadrangular grid shape formed in vertical and horizontal directions (see e.g. fig. 9b). [0088] discloses that the reinforcing ribs provided on the end plates support the several battery cells and buffer a pressure against two ends of the battery pack generated by expansion of the several battery cells. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reinforcing ribs of Fan in the end plates of Petersen for the above mentioned reason, satisfying the claimed limitation. As discussed above, the limitation “to increase rigidity” is not given patentable weight, though Fan does disclose this limitation anyways.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 20160315300 A1) in view of Benz (US 20170324130 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Petersen discloses the battery module of claim 1, wherein the module housing comprises a module case accommodating the cell stack (see fig. 2) and an end plate disposed on front side and rear side of the module case (fig. 2 shows two end walls 60 which correspond to the claimed end plates disposed on front and read sides of the module case). Petersen does not disclose that the end plate is provided with a reinforcing rib having a hexagonal grid shape, however such an end plate structure was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Benz discloses a battery module (title) provided with end plates that exhibit a “honeycomb-like” structure, in particular in hexagonal form ([0034], fig. 1), corresponding to the claimed reinforcing ribs. Benz discloses that such a structure may have a particularly low weight and nevertheless great stability at the same time. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Hexagonal ribs of Benz in the end plates of Petersen for the above mentioned reason, satisfying the claimed limitation. As discussed above, the limitation “to increase rigidity” is not given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 20160315300 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190181405 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Petersen discloses a battery pack [0042] comprising:
the battery module of claim 1. Petersen does not further disclose a pack housing to accommodate the battery module, however such configurations are common in the art, where a plurality of battery modules will further be fit into a pack housing, and as a result such an arrangement would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Kim discloses a pack housing 200 for a plurality of battery modules 100 (see fig. 6). As can be seen in the figure, as well as fig. 8, the end plates (called front and rear covers 150 and 160 by Kim) are positioned to be facing a wall surface of the pack housing. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to adopt the pack housing arrangement of Kim or a similar pack housing arrangement known in the art in order to obtain a known and commonly practiced solution for implementing a plurality of battery modules into a battery pack. After having implemented such a battery pack, the end plate (and therefore lifting support portion) of Petersen would face a wall surface of the pack housing, satisfying the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 20160315300 A1) in view of Kim (US 20190181405 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 20110151311 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Petersen discloses the battery pack of claim 14, wherein the module housing comprises a module case accommodating the cell stack (see fig. 2 of Petersen) and an end plate disposed on front side and rear side of the module case (fig. 2 shows two end walls 60 which correspond to the claimed end plates disposed on front and read sides of the module case). Modified Petersen does not disclose a frame according to the limitations of claim 15, however such configurations were readily known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement in modified Petersen.
For example, Lee discloses a battery module (fig. 2) provided with side supports 140 which serve the function of supporting the battery modules at the sides, these side supports are visible in fig. 2 and may be considered a frame which supports the battery module. It would have been obvious to implement the side supports/frame of Lee in the design of modified Petersen in order to provide increased support to the battery module.
Lee further discloses that the cover frame 170 of the battery module (visible in fig. 1, labeled in fig. 4) includes a bent portion, or flange, which extends toward the opposite end of the battery module and is supported by the module frame (visible in fig. 1). As a result, it would have been obvious to use this known arrangement in the design of modified Petersen, modifying the cover plate to include a flange which is supported by the frame. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to do this in order to provide increased structure/support for the battery module, and doing so would result in an arrangement satisfying the limitations of the instant claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights