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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The art rejections still apply albeit in modified form as necessitated by amendment. The objection to the specification persists as the new title is still not descriptive. The USC 112 rejection is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 10.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite that the cover member is spaced apart from the upper surface of the battery module group. Applicant asserts in the Remarks that this feature is not taught by Ahn and Matsuta. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ahn discloses a space t between the cover member and battery module group. The rejections have been modified accordingly.
The Applicant asserts in the Remarks that rearranging the cells of Ahn is not a mere rearrangement of parts as heat would transfer differently and that Matsuta and Ju do not overcome this deficiency. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Matsuta specifically discusses the value of orienting the cells in the manner claimed because of heat transfer (paragraph 47). Further, Applicant is reminded that the modification would be performed by one of ordinary skill. Components of the structure could accordingly be shifted and moved appropriately. These modifications do not preclude the functionality of the devices.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2020/0028201 A1) in view of Matsuta (US 2021/0083242 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses an apparatus comprising: a plurality of battery modules 110 each including cells 111 (paragraph 33); a pack frame 140 capable of housing the modules (see Figure 1); wherein the modules 110 are arranged in a row in the D1 direction to form a battery module group (the four modules depicted in Figure 1); wherein a compression cover member 130 capable of covering an entire upper surface of the group is located between the group and the frame 140 (see Figure 1). Ahn discloses that the cover member 130 has a space t between the member and the cells (see Figure 2). Ahn discloses that the cells are stack in the D2 direction and not the D1 direction. But rearrangement of parts is not grounds for patentability. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C. Matsuta—in an invention for battery modules stacked in a row with a compression band—discloses that both the cells and the modules are stacked in the X-direction (see Figure 2). Matsuta discloses that the orientation of the cells would improve heat transfer (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to orient the cells of Ahn in the D1 direction (turned clockwise) to orient the terminals in a manner preferable to the usage as suggested by Matsuta. Matsuta shows that such a reorientation would still allow for compression as intended by Ahn.
Regarding claim 2, Ahn discloses that a surface of the cells is perpendicular to the bottom 120 of frame 140 (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Ahn discloses that barrier walls 122 separate the modules into multiple groups (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ahn discloses connection members 170 located between the modules and between the modules and the cover (see Figure 1) and afix the battery modules (paragraph 47).
Claims 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn and Matsuta as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ju (US 2020/0411814 A1).
Ahn discloses a unitary cover member 130 and not that it is two parts. Ju—in an invention for battery modules of cells within a housing—discloses a cover plate 400 with two distinct sides and a hole in the middle for connecting to a bridge fixing unit 50 (see Figure 3). This allows for the modules to be covered while also fixing the bridge and modules to the housing (paragraphs 71-74). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to distinguish the cover plate of Ahn into distinct elements for each module group for fixing the cover plate to the barrier walls as suggested by Ju. Ju discloses that the batteries can be pouch-type (paragraph 37).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights