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 .
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 § 112
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 10 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. There is no distinction between the device of the preamble and the battery pack. 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 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, and 8-10 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 claims 1 and 10, 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 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 is a matter of usage. 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 a connection member 150 that connects adjacent modules (paragraph 36).
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
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