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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 17 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.
Claims 1-2: The phrases “3% or more” and “10% or less” are presented without substantial context as to ‘of what’ to be more or less of. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner understands these to be “a distance of 3% or more of a total thickness of the plurality of battery cells” and “a distance of 3% or more and 10% or less of a total thickness of the plurality of battery cells”.
Claim 1: The term “reserved space” does not distinctly claim subject matter. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner understands the term “reserved space” to be the thickness of empty space in the stacking direction divided by the total thickness of the plurality of battery cells.
Claims 3 and 9 clarify the understanding of the “reserved space” within the context of this invention.
Claim 5: The term "the thickness value" in line 2 lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 6-8, 13-15 and 17: These claims are rejected because they inherit the flaw(s) of their parent claims. In this case, that being a lack of clearly identifying the “reserved space”.
Claims 3-15 and 17: These claims are rejected because they inherit the flaw(s) of their parent claims. In this case, that being a lack of clearly identifying the necessary context for “3% or more”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. A battery pack is a battery module. Therefore, Claim 17 fails to narrow the scope of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhang (US-20190067762-A1).
Claims 1-3: Zhang ‘762 teaches a battery module (M) [¶ 0085], a battery cell stack [FIG. 18] formed by stacking a plurality of battery cells (21) [¶ 0086], a thermal conductive frame {module frame} (1) [¶ 0085] that houses the battery cell stack [FIG. 18], the module frame having side surface parts [FIG. 18], the side surface parts covering a respective side of the battery cell stack along a stacking direction [FIGs. 17, 18], a plurality of elastic buffering pads {compression pads} (5) disposed at least at one place between adjacent battery cells or between an outermost battery cell and one of the side surface parts [¶ 0104, FIG. 18], a middle space {reserved space} (S3) [¶ 0084].
Zhang ‘762 further teaches that the elastic buffering pad (5) can provide an expansion space for the battery [¶ 0104], a distance between the side surface parts of the thermal conductive frame (1) {W} [FIG. 18], a total thickness of the plurality of battery cells (21) {C} [FIG. 18], and a total thickness of the a least one elastic buffering pads (5) [FIG. 18].
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach a reserved space being 3% or more and 10% or less than the length of the plurality of batteries based on the stacking direction, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have made the reserved space 3%-10% to have optimized sufficient swelling space vs. excessive total space. For more on matters of optimization through routine experimentation, see MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Claim 4: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach a value of multiplying a thickness of the central part of each battery cell and a number of the plurality of battery cells, it does teach a plurality of batteries with about identical thicknesses [FIG. 18]. Therefore, the total thickness, ‘C’, would be the thickness value of a central part of a battery multiplied by the total number of batteries.
Claim 5: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach a value of multiplying a thickness of at least one compression pad in a compressed state and a number of at least one compression pad, it does teach a plurality of compression pads in a compressed state with about identical thicknesses [FIG. 18]. Therefore, the total thickness, ‘P’, would be the thickness value of a compression pad multiplied by the total number of compression pads.
Claims 6 and 13: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the battery being a pouch-shaped secondary battery (21) [¶ 0078] and that a first surface of each of the battery cells is parallel to the side surface parts [FIG. 18].
Claim 7: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches that the main body of the batteries (21) are adhered to a thermal conductive plate (221) [¶ 0098] and that the thermal conductive plate is attached to the thermal conductive frame (1) [¶ 0078].
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach an adhesion part, for something to be adhered (as described by Zhang ‘762) the adhering agent must contain an adhesion part.
Claim 8: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach an adhesion layer, through adhering something (as described by Zhang ‘762) the layer formed by adhesion is an adhesion layer.
Claim 9: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach a value corresponding to a total thickness of the at least one adhesion part, an adhesive layer formed by adhesion would have a thickness. A person of ordinary skill in the Art is able to assign a stand-in variable, such as “D”, to represent said thickness in Zhang ‘762.
Claim 10: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach a value of multiplying a thickness of the central part of each battery cell and a number of the plurality of battery cells, it does teach a plurality of batteries with about identical thicknesses [FIG. 18]. Therefore, the total thickness, ‘C’, would be the thickness value of a central part of a battery multiplied by the total number of batteries, as similarly stated for Claim 4 above.
Claim 11: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach a value of multiplying a thickness of at least one compression pad in a compressed state and a number of at least one compression pad, it does teach a plurality of compression pads in a compressed state with about identical thicknesses [FIG. 18]. Therefore, the total thickness, ‘P’, would be the thickness value of a compression pad multiplied by the total number of compression pads, as similarly stated for Claim 5 above.
Claim 12: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach a value of multiplying a thickness of at least one adhesion part and a number of at least one adhesion part, it does teach a plurality of adhered parts [¶ 0098]. While Zhang ‘762 is silent on the thickness of the adhesion parts and variations, therein, the depiction of the embodiment demonstrates near identical thicknesses of the adhesion parts [FIG. 18]. Therefore, the total thickness, ‘D’, would be the thickness value of an adhesion part multiplied by the total number of adhesion parts.
Claim 14: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach at least one adhesion part covering the first surface of each battery cell, through adhering the side of the battery (as described by Zhang ‘762 [¶ 0098]) the layer formed by adhesion must, at least in part, cover the adhered surface.
Claim 15: Zhang ‘762 teaches the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above.
While Zhang ‘762 does not explicitly teach at least one adhesion part covering the first surface of each battery cell, through adhering the side of the battery (as described by Zhang ‘762 [¶ 0098]) the layer formed by adhesion must, at least in part, cover the adhered surface. Additionally, an adhered part has adhesion in “an area” of 90-100%. Otherwise, the part could not be adhered.
Claim 17: Zhang ‘762 teaches the battery module of Claim 1. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the Art recognizes a battery pack is a battery module.
Relevant Prior Art
It is noted that Yamamoto (US-20220173463-A1) is relevant prior Art. Yamamoto ‘463 teaches a lithium-ion battery stack that utilizes distinct and visible adhesive layers that are noted to be cushioning. While the Examiner notes that Zhang ‘762 may be used alone to reject the current version of the claims in the present disclosure, it is recommended that Yamamoto ‘463 be considered by the applicant as well when making revisions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm (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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L GAGNON/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights