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 Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0320358 hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells [100] stacked in a first direction; a module frame that houses the battery cells (i.e., battery units formed in a module and expected to include a housing that accommodates the module) (paragraph 3); and a spacer (sliding plate) [300] disposed between adjacent battery cells (see annotated figure 1 shown below), wherein the spacer [300] comprises leaf springs [330] that are movable in the first direction (paragraphs 14, 40).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells [100] stacked in a first direction; a module frame that houses the battery cells (i.e., battery units formed in a module and expected to include a housing) (paragraph 3); and a spacer [300] disposed between adjacent battery cells (see annotated figure 1 shown above), wherein the spacer [300] comprises a first leaf spring and a second leaf spring (i.e., first and second sliding plates) [330] that are connected to upper and lower support members (shaft members) [310 and 312] (paragraphs 14, 40, see figure 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee teaches that the plurality of battery cells [100] are stacked in the first direction, and the first and second leaf springs (i.e., first and second sliding plates) [330] are movable in the first direction (paragraph 14).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0044113 hereinafter Wagner.
Regarding Claim 1, Wagner teaches a battery module [1] comprising: a plurality of battery cells [2] stacked in a first direction; a module frame [5] that encloses the battery units; and a sliding plate (partition and spring element) [4 and 6] disposed between adjacent battery cells (see annotated figure 1 shown below), wherein the sliding plate comprises spring element [6] that are movable in the first direction (paragraphs 32-33).
PNG
media_image2.png
409
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0320358 hereinafter Lee in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0044113 hereinafter Wagner.
Regarding Claims 2-5, the combination teaches a battery module wherein the sliding plate comprises a first sliding plate and a second sliding plate (see figures 1-2 of Lee), and connection (support) members including upper and lower parts that connect the first sliding plate and the second sliding plate (see figures 1-2 of Lee). Wagner further teaches a spring element in the support (connection) member (see figures 1 above), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such support mechanism in the battery assembly before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such configuration can effectively secure the battery module together.
Regarding Claims 7-12, the combination teaches a battery module wherein the sliding plate comprises a first sliding plate and a second sliding plate (see figures 1-2 of Lee), and support (shaft) members including upper and lower parts that connect the first sliding plate and the second sliding plate (see figures 1-2 of Lee). Wagner further teaches that the module frame comprises end plates and bracing elements (i.e., frame assembly) configured to enclose the battery units and the sliding plates (see figures 1 above), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such support mechanism in the battery assembly before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such configuration can effectively secure the battery module together.
The combination teaches that the module frame comprises frame assembly to enclose the battery units; the shaft members fixed in the frame assembly; and a mounting part formed on a side surface part of the module frame in the first direction (see combination of Lee and Wagner described above).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination teaches a battery pack comprising the battery module as described above (paragraph 2 of Wagner).
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 OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights