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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Nakamoto et al. (US 20190214624 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Nakamoto teaches a battery module (100) comprising cell stack (110s) in which a plurality of battery cells that are vertically stacked (¶ 0026 and Fig. 2). Nakamoto teaches a module housing comprising a base plate (122) supporting the cell stack and a pair of side plates (123) covering side portions of the cell stack (¶ 0059 - ¶ 0060 and Fig. 2). The side plates taught by Nakamoto and the columns formed by the first and second spacers (114 and 115) form similar protruding “bent” portions to the spark direction changing portions (220a) of the instant application’s Fig. 2. Without additional spatial information as to the location of spark generation, this portion is defined by its structure rather than its function. Thus, the side plates (123) and the columns formed by the first spacer (114) and second spacer (115) read on the spark direction changing portions formed by bending an end portion of each of the pair of side lates in a longitudinal direction of the side plate toward the cell stack. Nakamoto goes on to teach a bus bar frame assembly (bus bar unit, 130). In Fig. 4, Nakamoto shows that the bus bar frame assembly covers an opening portion formed on a side of the module housing in a longitudinal direction of the module housing. Nakamoto teaches that the bus bar frame assembly comprises a bus bar frame (bus bar holder, 131) coupled to a side of the cells stack in a longitudinal direction of the cell stack and a bus bar (132) located on the bus bar frame and coupled to electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells (¶ 0064 and Fig. 4). Figs. 2 and 4 are shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
875
999
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, as discussed earlier, Nakamoto teaches the side plates taught by Nakamoto and the columns formed by the first spacer 114 and a second spacer 115 form similar protruding “bent” portions to the spark direction changing portions (200a) of the instant application’s Fig. 2. This reads on each spark direction changing portion having a shape in which the respective side plate is bent twice in a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of the side plate.
With regards to claim 11, teaches a battery pack comprising the battery module according to claim 1 (¶ 0003 and ¶ 0026).
With regards to claim 12, Nakamoto teaches that a plurality of the battery packs are mounted in a vehicle as a power source. This reads on an energy storage system comprising the battery pack according to claim 11.
With regards to claim 13, Nakamoto teaches a vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 11 (¶ 0026).
With regards to claim 14, Nakamoto teaches the battery module of claim 1. In Fig. 1, Nakamoto teaches that each spark changing portion comprises a first section extending from the respective side plate and a second extending inwardly from the first section. Fig. 1 is shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
794
831
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto et al. (US 20190214624 A1) and in view of Lee et al. (US 20210320374 A1)
With regards to claim 3, Nakamoto teaches that the bus bar holder includes insulating portions between adjacent bus bars that prevent discharge (¶ 0067). However, Nakamoto does not teach the battery module of claim 1 further comprising a fire-proof sheet located between the bus bar frame assembly and the cell stack.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a battery module comprising a cell stack (¶ 0010) and a module housing configured to accommodate the cell stack (¶ 0056). Lee also teaches a bus bar frame assembly (bus bar frame (120) covering an opening formed on a side of the module housing in a longitudinal direction of the module housing (Fig. 6), the bus bar frame assembly comprising a bus bar frame (plate support portions, 122) coupled to a side of the cells stack in a longitudinal direction of the cell stack and a bus bar (lead placing portion, 121) located on the bus bar frame coupled to electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells (¶ 0048). Lee goes on to teach a mica barrier assembly (700,800) disposed between adjacent battery cells and at an outermost side of the cell stack( Fig. 3, ¶ 0010 - ¶ 0011 and 0039). As part of the mica barrier assembly, Lee teaches a first and second mica plate (700 and 800) disposed between the cell stack and the bus bar frame assembly (¶ 0067 and Fig. 3). Lee goes on to teach that the mica plates minimize that the flame is ejected to the outside of the module along the drawing direction of the electrode lead (¶ 0068). Lee teaches that the mica plate has excellent flame retardancy properties and prevents the thermal runaway phenomenon from propagating between adjacent battery cells (¶ 0046). This mica plate reads on a fireproof sheet
PNG
media_image4.png
680
1061
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
648
1223
media_image5.png
Greyscale
located between the bus bar assembly and the cell stack. Fig. 3 and 6 are shown below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include a mica plate as taught by Lee between the cell stack and bus bar frame assembly of the battery module taught by Nakamoto as this would predictably allow for the prevention of a thermal runaway in the module.
With regards to claim 4, Lee teaches that the fire-proof sheet is formed of a mica material (¶ 0049).
With regards to claim 7, In Fig. 3, Lee teaches that the fireproof sheet (700) comprises at least one sheet holes (H).
PNG
media_image6.png
648
1223
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 8, modified Nakamoto teaches the battery module of claim 7. As shown in Fig. 3, Lee teaches that the bus bar frame comprises at least one frame protrusion. In Fig. 3 the frame protrusion portion is inserted into the two mica plates forming the mica barrier assembly (¶ 0068) which include sheet holes. This reads on the bus bar frame comprising at least one frame protrusion, and wherein the at least one frame protrusion is inserted into the at least one sheet hole to fix the fire-proof sheet. Fig. 3 is shown below.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto et al. (US 20190214624 A1) and in view of Lee et al. (US 20210320374 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Kang et al. (US 20220209321 A1)
With regards to claim 5, Nakamoto in view of Lee teaches a fireproof sheet located between the bus bar frame assembly and the cell stack. Lee teaches that the first mica plate is positioned along the drawing direction on the electrode lead (¶ 0068 and Fig. 3). As shown and discussed earlier, Lee teaches a lead placing portion included in the bus bar frame assembly where the electrode leads are drawn out via drawing slits (¶ 0049 and Fig. 6). As discussed earlier, Lee discloses that the mica plate has excellent flame retardancy properties and prevents the thermal runaway phenomenon from propagating between adjacent battery cells by minimizing flame that may be ejected to the outside of the module along the drawing direction of the electrode lead (¶ 0046 and ¶ 0068). In addition, Lee teaches that mica has excellent electrical insulation properties (¶ 0046). However, Nakamoto and Lee do not teach that the fireproof sheet comprises a plurality of sheet slits through which the electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells pass.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kang teaches a battery module that comprises a cell stack including a plurality of battery cells (¶ 0008). Similar to modified Nakamoto, Kang teaches a bus bar assembly coupled to a side of the cell stack on which the electrode leads are disposed (¶ 0008). Kang goes on to teach that the bus bar may include an insulating cover having a first slit through which the electrode lead is inserted and a bus bar attached to the insulating cover having a second slit through which the electrode lead is also inserted (¶ 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the mica plate taught by modified Nakamoto to include slits through which the leads are inserted in the manner taught by Kang. As the mica sheet is known to have excellent insulating properties, this would predictably result in a well-insulated battery.
PNG
media_image7.png
588
779
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 6, Nakamoto teaches that the electrode tabs are drawn out from the cell body and electrically interconnected via the bus bar (¶ 0025). As shown in Fig. 4 below, the bus bar frame (bus bar holder , 131) includes space (slits) through which the electrode tabs are drawn out. Lee also teaches that the lead placing portion discussed earlier, includes a lead drawing slit through which the electrode lead passes (¶ 0049). Nakamoto in view of Lee and Kang teach the fireproof sheet between the bus bar frame assembly and the cell stack. Modified Nakamoto also teaches that the fireproof sheet includes a plurality of sheet slits through which the electrode leads are inserted and a bus bar attached to the fireproof sheet having a second slit through which the electrode leads are also inserted. Thus, the plurality of sheet slits are provided at positions corresponding to the plurality of frame slits.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto et al. (US-20190214624-A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210320374 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, an in further view of Sakurai et al (US 20190006643 A1).
With regards to claim 9, modified Nakamoto teaches the battery module of claim 7. However, modified Nakamoto does not teach the module housing further comprises a fastening frame connecting a pair of the spark direction changing portions.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sakurai teaches a battery module comprising a cell stack with a pair of end plates a front and rear surface of the stack and includes a fastening frame to connect the pair of end plates (¶ 0080). Sakurai goes on to teach that the end plates include hollow portions in an up-down direction that meet fixing portions to secure the plates (¶ 0113). In ¶ 0097, Sakurai teaches this fastening method prevents stress transfer to the module from the end plates even when the cell pressure constraint reaction force increases due to the expansion of the cell caused by the temperature change and the aging deterioration, and accordingly the end plate moves in the front-rear direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the module housing taught by Nakamoto to include a fastening frame as taught by Sakurai to connect the pair of spark direction changing portions. This would predictably prevent stress transfer to the battery module.
With regards to claim 10, modified Nakamoto teaches a fastening frame that connects a pair of the spark direction changing portions. As discussed earlier, Sakurai teaches that the end plates include hollow portions in an up-down direction that meet fixing portions to secure the plates (¶ 0113). Through the modification discussed above, the spark changing portions are connected to the hollow end plates wherein the extending leads pass through holes in the hollow portions to meet the bus bar frame. This hollow potion would be between frame slits and the bus bar assembly. As discussed previously, the bus bar frame is fixed to the fire-proof sheet via a frame protrusion and a sheet hole. As this fixing method is already known and utilized, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to use a similar method to fix the fire proof sheet to the fastening frame as there are no unpredictable results.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto et al. (US-20190214624-A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Sakurai et al (US 20190006643 A1).
With regards to claim 15, Nakamoto teaches the battery module of claim 1. However, Nakamoto does not teach the battery module further comprises a fastening frame connecting a second section of a spark direction changing portion of a first side plate of the pair of side plates to a second section of a spark direction changing portion of a second side plate of the pair of side plates.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sakurai teaches a battery module comprising a cell stack with a pair of end plates a front and rear surface of the stack and includes a fastening frame to connect the pair of end plates (¶ 0080). Sakurai goes on to teach that the end plates include hollow portions in an up-down direction that meet fixing portions to secure the plates (¶ 0113). In ¶ 0097, Sakurai teaches this fastening method prevents stress transfer to the module from the end plates even when the cell pressure constraint reaction force increases due to the expansion of the cell caused by the temperature change and the aging deterioration, and accordingly the end plate moves in the front-rear direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the battery module taught by Nakamoto to include a fastening frame as taught by Sakurai to connect the pair of spark direction changing portions. Connecting the pair of spark direction changing portions will connect the first and second sections of the spark direction changing portion with their respective side plates. This modification would predictably prevent stress transfer to the battery module.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 3-6 and 8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4, 6, and 8 of copending Application No. 17/925,531 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regards to claim 1, ‘531 teaches a battery module comprising: a cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells are vertically stacked (claim 1 and claim 15); a module housing comprising a base plate supporting the cell stack, a pair of side plates covering side portions of the cell stack and spark direction changing portions formed by bending an end portion of each of the pair of side plates in a longitudinal direction of the side plate toward the cell stack (claim 2); and a bus bar frame assembly covering an opening portion formed on a side of the module housing in a longitudinal direction of the module housing (claim 1), the bus bar frame assembly comprising a bus bar frame coupled to a side of the cells stack in a longitudinal direction of the cell stack and a bus bar located on the bus bar frame and coupled to electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells (claim 4).
With regards to claim 3, ‘531 teaches the battery module of claim 1, further comprising a fire-proof sheet located between the bus bar frame assembly and the cell stack (claim 1).
With regards to claim 4, ‘531 teaches the battery module of claim 3, wherein the fire-proof sheet is formed of a mica material (claim 6).
With regards to claim 5, ‘531 teaches the battery module of claim 3, wherein the fire-proof sheet comprises a plurality of sheet slits through which the electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells pass (claim 5).
With regards to claim 6, ‘531 teaches the battery module of claim 5, wherein the bus bar frame comprises a plurality of frame slits, and wherein the plurality of sheet slits is provided at positions corresponding to the plurality of frame slits (claim 4).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights