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 .
SCALABLE STRUCTURABLE BATTERY PACK
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/264,016 Art Unit: 1727 February 19, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on August 02, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-4 and 7-13 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claims 3-4 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "he second battery module" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “enhanced” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “enhanced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, any external fastening pieces with the claimed structure will be construed to read on the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2013/0224524 A1; as found in IDS dated 08/02/2023) in view of Rath et al. (US 2020/0381694 A1).
As to Claim 1, Nam discloses a scalable battery pack, comprising: a structure having the claimed coordinate system layout and at least one battery module having a housing around said module (Fig. 6-7 and paragraphs [0034]). Said battery module comprises plate-shaped heat exchangers 142 located on the XY plane thereof; end plates 120 located on the YZ plane thereof; wherein the end plates of adjacent battery modules are connectable, lockable and releasable by one or more connectors 122,124 (Fig. 2-7 and paragraphs [0018-0019, 0062, 0071, 0080]). Nam further discloses wherein the XZ top plane of the battery modules comprises a current connector plate (current connectors that are plate shaped and have a height less than a length thereof) 1113 to connect adjacent modules together and terminals 1111 (Fig. 12 and paragraph [0163]). Nam does not specifically disclose wherein the top plane comprises at least two of the claimed items.
However, Rath teaches of a scalable battery pack having battery modules, wherein the top plane of the battery modules comprises a ventilation system 13 and positive and negative terminals (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0041). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Nam to comprise the claimed a ventilation system with the terminals on the top plane because Rath teaches that gas generated in the battery cells can be exhausted to the outside to maintain a safe battery (paragraph [0041]).
As to Claim 2, Nam discloses wherein the connectors in the end plates comprises two symmetrical connection depressions (grooves) 122 in a first battery module and respective symmetrical connection protrusions 124a (locking pins) in an adjacent module (fig. 7 and paragraphs [0071, 0076 and 0078]).
As to Claim 7, Nam does not specifically disclose the material of the current connectors.
However, Rath teaches of metal busbars 15 used to connect adjacent cells (paragraph [0046]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cell connectors of Nam to be metal because Rath teaches that adjacent battery cells can be electrically connected together (paragraph [0046]).
As to Claim 8, Nam discloses wherein the battery has a pouch case and wherein conventional cases are metallic (paragraphs [0008 and 0034]). In addition, Rath teaches wherein the battery case is formed of metal (paragraph [0040]).
As to Claim 9, Nam discloses several heat exchanging features 142 which will intrinsically impart at least a partial spiraling route for the coolant because the features prevent a straight path for cooling air from forming (Fig. 1).
As to Claim 13, Nam discloses external fastening pieces 1113,1113a that connect adjacent batteries together in a Y direction, wherein the external fastening pieces are attached to end pieces on the YZ planes (as shown in Fig. 18).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 2013/0224524 A1; as found in IDS dated 08/02/2023) in view of Rath et al. (US 2020/0381694 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 7-9 and 13 above and in further view of Yoshida (US 2021/0143508 A1).
As to Claims 10-12, Nam does not specifically disclose the claimed intermediate plates (claim 10); or metal between modules (claim 11); or strips of materials between modules (claim 12).
However, Yoshida teaches of a battery pack, comprising a metal separator 2 provided between adjacent cells, wherein the separator further comprises strips of material that form grooves 49 to allow cooling fluid to be flowed therebetween 8 (Fig. 10 and 19; and paragraphs [0058 and 0079]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of modified Nam to comprise the claimed intermediate plates/metal/material strips because Yoshida teaches that a cooling gas can flow therethrough to cool the battery cells (paragraph [0058]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the closest prior arts of record, Nam and Rath, do not specifically disclose, teach, or fairly suggest wherein each of the connectors comprise a spigot shaft that allows for rotating either of the first or second battery modules around a central horizontal axis so that the locking pins will be set in the connection grooves when connection is performed (claim 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727