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 .
Drawings
Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “404” has been used to designate both a “lid” (in Figure 4D) and an “unknown structure” (on the left side of Figure 4A). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the phrase that can be implied “The present invention provides…” (in the 1st line), as well as the legal term “comprises” (in the 2nd line).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[Figure 2]” should be removed after the end of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, 2nd line, add “,” after “third”.
In claim 9, 3rd line, replace “each sets” with “each of the sets”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axes" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Since claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in the 9th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Since claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper surface" in the 20th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Since claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
With regard to independent claim 1, it is noted that there are two identical steps of “applying a layer of adhesive over the upper surface of the cylindrical cells in the fixture”, only separated by a step of “placing one of a third group of cylindrical cells on top of each of the cells in the first group of cylindrical cells”. Should the “applying a layer of adhesive…” steps be provided in duplicate, or is/are the “applying” step(s) to be conducted in a specific sequence? Correction and clarification are required. Since claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the position" in the 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the adjacent cell location features" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the diameter" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the busbar assemblies" in the 6th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first ends" bridging the 6th and 7th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of cells" bridging the 7th and 8th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachtmann et al. (US 2013/0270749), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 11, 2023.
Regarding independent claim 1, as well as claims 11-13, Hachtmann et al. disclose a method of manufacture of a set of mechanically connected cylindrical cells to form a battery module configured to be installed in a vehicle (paragraphs [0006]-[0010] and [0027]-[0033]; claims 13-20; and Figures 1-4), in which the method includes the following steps:
providing a fixture (module fixture (205)) having a base (adjacent mask (240)) with a plurality of location features (bonding wells (215)) defined thereon (see paragraphs [0027]-[0029]; claim 13; and Figure 2), wherein
each of the location features (215) is arranged to constrain a cylindrical cell (battery cell (210)) placed therein such that longitudinal axes of the cells (210) in the location features (215) are substantially parallel (see paragraphs [0027]-[0029]; claim 13; and Figure 2);
a first group of the location features (215) are arranged to constrain a cell (210) placed in the respective location feature (215) such that a longitudinal axis of each cell (210) is located in a first plane (see paragraphs [0027]-[0029]; claim 13; and Figure 2);
a second group of location features (215) are arranged to constrain a cell (210) placed in the respective location feature (215) such that the longitudinal axis of each cell (210) is located in a second plane parallel to the first plane (see paragraphs [0027]-[0033]; claim 13; and Figures 2-4); and
each of the location features (215) in the second group is adjacent to one or two location features (215) in the first group, and is not adjacent to any location features (215) in the second group (see paragraphs [0027]-[0033]; claim 13; and Figures 2-4),
placing one of a first group of cylindrical cells (210) into each of the location features (215) in the first group of location features (215) – see paragraphs [0027]-[0029]; claim 13; and Figure 2;
placing one of a second group of cylindrical cells (210) into each of the location features (215) in the second group of location features (215) – see paragraphs [0027]-[0033]; claim 13; and Figures 2-4;
applying a layer of adhesive over an upper surface of the cylindrical cells (210) in the fixture (205), wherein one or more additional module fixtures (including first module fixture element (110) and second module fixture element (115)) would be provided for accommodating an array of battery cells (210) – see paragraphs [0027]-[0033]; claim 13; and Figures 1-4; and
placing one of a third group of cylindrical cells (210) on top of each of the cells (210) in the first group of cylindrical cells (210) – see paragraphs [0027]-[0033]; claim 13; and Figures 1-4.
Although the disclosure of Hachtmann et al. includes an array of battery cells (210) provided parallel to one another and a step of applying a layer of adhesive thereon (see paragraphs [0027]-[0033] and Figures 2-4), Hachtmann et al. do not explicitly disclose the steps of additionally applying a layer (or subsequent layers) of adhesive over an upper surface of the cylindrical cells in the fixture and placing one of a fourth group (or subsequent groups) of cylindrical cells on top of each of the cells in the second group of cylindrical cells. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of manufacturing of an array of battery cells disclosed by Hachtmann et al. would readily include additional steps of applying layer(s) of adhesive and placing additional groups of cylindrical cells thereon to obtain a larger but similarly compact array of battery cells of even larger size and power capacity, for the purpose of obtaining increased power output with high packing density while minimizing adhesive usage and leakage in the battery module of a vehicle, thus reducing expense (see paragraphs [0006] and [0010]). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that similarly repeated steps of applying and placing would be a mere duplication of process steps, rendering these repeated steps obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Hachtmann et al. disclose that the fixture (205) further comprises first and second side walls (defined by walls of a height defined by fill depth (217) upstanding from the base (adjacent mask (240)), and wherein the first and second side walls are arranged to constrain a position of one or more of the cells (210) in the third group (see paragraphs [0027]-[0033]; claim 13; and Figures 1-4).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, although Hachtmann et al. disclose multiple groups of cylindrical cells (210) into each of multiple location features (215), Hachtmann et al. do not explicitly disclose that adjacent cell location features (215) are spaced apart by a distance of less than a diameter of the cells (210), plus either (or both) of 1 mm and/or 0.5 mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that relative spacings between each cell of an array of battery cells would be readily determined to modify a degree of compactness and weight of the array of battery cells, for the purpose of obtaining increased power output with high packing density while minimizing adhesive usage and leakage in the battery module of a vehicle, thus reducing expense (see paragraphs [0006] and [0010]).
Regarding claim 5, Hachtmann et al. disclose that each of the first, second, third, and fourth groups of cells (210) comprises at least two or three cells (210) – see Figures 3 and 4.
Regarding claims 6-8, although Hachtmann et al. disclose and/or suggest the method of independent claim 1 (including multiple steps of “placing” and “applying” therein), Hachtmann et al. do not explicitly disclose additional steps of applying a layer of adhesive over the upper surface of the cylindrical cells in the fixture (after placing the fourth group of cylindrical cells), and placing one of a fifth group of cylindrical cells on top of each of the cells in the third group of cylindrical cells (of claim 6); applying a layer of adhesive over the upper surface of the cylindrical cells in the fixture (after placing the fifth group of cylindrical cells), and placing one of a sixth group of cylindrical cells on top of each of the cells in the fourth group of cylindrical cells (of claim 7); and placing one of a sixth group of cylindrical cells on top of each of the cells in the fourth group of cylindrical cells (after placing the fifth group of cylindrical cells) (of claim 8). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of manufacturing of an array of battery cells (210) disclosed by Hachtmann et al. would readily include additional steps of applying layer(s) of adhesive and placing additional groups of cylindrical cells thereon to obtain a larger but similarly compact array of battery cells of even larger size and power capacity, for the purpose of obtaining increased power output with high packing density while minimizing adhesive usage and leakage in the battery module of a vehicle, thus reducing expense (see paragraphs [0006] and [0010]). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that similarly repeated steps of applying and placing would be a mere duplication of process steps, rendering these repeated steps obvious.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Hachtmann et al. disclose a method of manufacture of a battery module of a vehicle (paragraphs [0006]-[0010] and [0027]-[0033]; claims 13-20; and Figures 2-4), in which the method includes the step of manufacturing first and second sets of mechanically connected cylindrical cells (210), wherein each of the sets of mechanically connected cylindrical cells (210) is manufactured according to the method as claimed in claim 1 (see above rejection applied to independent claim 1).
Although Hachtmann et al. disclose assembling having many elements, including for battery modules used in electric vehicles while using multiple battery cells (210) in multiple location features (215), including tens to hundreds to thousands or more elements (see paragraphs [0006] and [0010]), Hachtmann et al. do not explicitly disclose the steps of connecting a respective busbar assembly to each of the first and second sets of mechanically connected cylindrical cells (210), wherein busbar assemblies are located proximate first ends of the cells (210) in the respective set and are arranged to electrically connect a plurality of cells (210) in each set in parallel, thereby to create first and second sub-assemblies, followed by positioning the first and second sub-assemblies within a housing and electrically connecting the busbar assemblies of the first and second sub-assemblies, such that the cells (210) in the first sub-assembly to the cells (210) in the second sub-assembly in series, wherein the battery module is configured to be installed as a step of manufacture of a vehicle. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the battery modules having the large array of battery cells (210) to form large but compact battery modules configured for use in electric vehicles would readily be assembled by electrically connecting of the busbar assemblies having first and second sub-assemblies that are pre-positioned within a housing, for the purpose of obtaining increased power output with high packing density while minimizing adhesive usage and leakage in the battery module of a vehicle, thus reducing expense (see paragraphs [0006] and [0010]). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that similarly repeated steps of applying and placing would be a mere duplication of process steps, rendering these repeated steps obvious. In addition, the steps of connecting a respective busbar assembly to each of the first and second sets of mechanically connected cells, as well as electrically connecting busbar assemblies of the first and second sub-assemblies, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Hachtmann et al. disclose and/or suggest all features of independent claim 1, which when taken in combination of manufacture of a battery module configured for use in electric vehicles (see paragraphs [0006] and [0010]), would render additional steps of “connecting” and “electrically connecting” obvious since these are merely intermediate, conventional process steps in manufacturing and installing the battery module followed by its installation into an electric vehicle (see paragraph [0006] of Hachtmann et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 February 26, 2026