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 § 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 2-13 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 2 recites “the battery cell”. Claim 1 recites a plurality of battery cells, and does not specifically identify a distinct battery cell. Therefore “the battery cell” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 3-13 are also rejected because of their dependence from claim 2.
Claims 4, 7, and 9 also recite “the battery cell”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0136413 to Hermann.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12, 14, and 15, Hermann teaches a device having a battery pack (¶0002-0004), the battery pack comprising a battery module comprising
A plurality of battery cells 201 (Figs. 2, 7, ¶0024)
An upper case 701 comprising a plurality of first side plates (vertically extending portions of 701 of Fig. 7 that terminates near 705, ¶0030) to surround a first space (also see perspective view of similar element 100 in Figs. 1, 2) and an upper plate (horizontally extending portion of 701) connected to upper ends of the first side plates, the upper case being configured to receive upper parts of the battery cells 201 in the first space
A lower case 703 comprising a plurality of second side plates (vertically extending portions of 703) to surround a second space and a lower plate (horizontally extending portion of 703) connected to lower ends of the second side plates, the lower case being configured to receive lower parts of the battery cells 201 in the lower space
Wherein the upper plate has a plurality of through-holes (holes exposing top portions of 201, labeled holes 503 (¶0028, 0029).
Per claim 2, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1. The through-holes comprise
A first through-hole configured to expose one end of a battery cell 201 to an outside therethrough (hole not specifically labeled in Fig. 7, similar to 103 of Fig. 1, ¶0022)
A second through-hole (one element 503 illustrated in Fig. 7) configured to allow a potting resin (“encapsulant” in the text) to be injected therethrough (the limitation “configured to allow….” Is an intended use limitation; Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115; the text confirms that 503 is intended for potting resin injection)
A third through-hole (a distinct element 503 in Fig. 7) configured to discharge air therethrough from the upper case 701 and the lower case 703 when the potting resin is filled (the limitation “configured to discharge…” is an intended use limitation; a skilled artisan would understand that an element 503 is intended to pass resin, and therefore necessarily capable of passing air).
Per claim 4, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 2. The first through-hole comprises a first upper through-hole (analogous to 103 of Fig. 1) having a diameter less than an outer diameter of the battery cell 201 (see Marked-up Fig. 7 below) and a first lower through-hole (analogous to 107) having a diameter equal to or greater than the outer diameter of the battery cell, and wherein a first space portion is provided under the upper plate.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First lower through-hole)][AltContent: textbox (First space portion)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (First sealing member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Fourth through-hole)][AltContent: textbox (Second space portion)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First upper through-hole)]
PNG
media_image1.png
166
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 5, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 4. The first side plate is provided at a lower end thereof with a first sealing member protruding by a predetermined length (male part of 705; see Marked-up Fig. 7; ¶0030).
Per claim 6, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 5. The first sealing member is integral with the upper case 701.
Per claim 7, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 2. The lower plate 703 has a fourth through-hole (see Marked-up Fig. 7) configured to expose the other end of the battery cell 201 to the outside therethrough while encompassing a lower part of the lower plate.
Per claim 12, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 5. The second side plate is provided in an upper end thereof with a concave recess configured to allow the first sealing member to be seated therein (see Marked-up Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 13, this rejection relies on a different interpretation of Hermann than relied upon above. Hermann teaches a battery module comprising
A plurality of battery cells 201 (Figs. 2, 7, ¶0024)
An upper case 704 comprising a plurality of first side plates (vertically extending portions of 703 of Fig. 7 that terminates near 705, ¶0030) to surround a first space (also see perspective view of similar element 100 in Figs. 1, 2) and an upper plate (horizontally extending portion of 703) connected to upper ends of the first side plates, the upper case being configured to receive upper parts of the battery cells 201 in the first space
A lower case 701 comprising a plurality of second side plates (vertically extending portions of 701) to surround a second space and a lower plate (horizontally extending portion of 701) connected to lower ends of the second side plates, the lower case being configured to receive lower parts of the battery cells 201 in the lower space
Wherein the upper plate has a plurality of through-holes (holes exposing top portions of 201, labeled holes 503 (¶0028, 0029).
The through-holes comprise
A first through-hole configured to expose one end of a battery cell 201 to an outside therethrough (hole not specifically labeled in Fig. 7, similar to 103 of Fig. 1, ¶0022)
A second through-hole (one element 503 illustrated in Fig. 7) configured to allow a potting resin (“encapsulant” in the text) to be injected therethrough (the limitation “configured to allow….” Is an intended use limitation; Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115; the text confirms that 503 is intended for potting resin injection)
A third through-hole (a distinct element 503 in Fig. 7) configured to discharge air therethrough from the upper case 703 and the lower case 701 when the potting resin is filled (the limitation “configured to discharge…” is an intended use limitation; a skilled artisan would understand that an element 503 is intended to pass resin, and therefore necessarily capable of passing air).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (First sealing member)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
166
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The second side plate is provided at an upper end thereof with a first sealing member (male part of 705; see Marked-up Fig. 7 directly above, ¶0030) protruding by a predetermined length, and wherein the first side plate is provided in a lower end thereof with a concave recess configured to allow the first sealing member to be seated therein.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0391623 to Barrowclift (included in Applicant’s 11/20/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-11, Barrowclift teaches a device having a battery pack, the battery pack comprising a battery module comprising
A plurality of battery cells 206 (Fig. 10, ¶0046-0048)
An upper case 202 comprising a plurality of first side plates (250 represents the four side plates of 202 of Fig. 10) to surround a first space and an upper plate 212 connected to upper ends of the first side plates (Figs. 16-20), the upper case being configured to receive upper parts of the battery cells 206 (¶0051-0053)
An lower case 204 comprising a plurality of first side plates (252 represents the four side plates of 204 of Fig. 10) to surround a second space and a lower plate 254 connected to upper ends of the first side plates (Figs. 11-13), the lower case being configured to receive lower parts of the battery cells 206 (¶0050)
Wherein the upper plate 212 has a plurality of through-holes 220, 222, 238 (¶0042, 0043, 0054, 0055).
Per claim 2, Barrowclift teaches the limitations of claim 1. The through-holes comprise
A first through-hole 238 configured to expose one end of a battery cell 206 to an outside therethrough (Figs. 16, 20)
A second through-hole 220 configured to allow a potting resin (“adhesive” in the text) to be injected therethrough (the limitation “configured to allow….” Is an intended use limitation; Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115; the text confirms that 220 is intended for injection of a material with a viscosity, ¶0033, 0037)
A third through-hole 222 configured to discharge air therethrough from the upper case 202 and the lower case 204 when the potting resin is filled (the limitation “configured to discharge…” is an intended use limitation; a skilled artisan would understand that an element 222 is intended to air, ¶0034, 0035).
Per claim 4, Barrowclift teaches the limitations of claim 2. The first through hole 238 comprises a first upper through-hole having a diameter less than an outer diameter of the battery cell 206 (this is best shown in Fig. 8A, addressed to a different embodiment but having the same corresponding limitation 138; see Marked-up Fig. 8A below) and a first lower through-hole having a diameter equal to or greater than the outer diameter of the battery cell, wherein a first space portion is provided under the upper plate 212 (¶0042, 0044, 0046).
[AltContent: textbox (First space portion)][AltContent: textbox (Lower through-hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper through-hole)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
354
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 7, Barrowclift teaches the limitations of claim 2. The lower plate 254 has a fourth through-hole 238 configured to expose the other end of the battery cell 206 to the outside therethrough while encompassing a lower part of the battery cell (Fig. 15, ¶0050), wherein a second space portion is provided in an upper part of the lower plate (also see the embodiment of Figs. 1, ¶0029).
Per claim 8, Barrowclift teaches the limitations of claim 7. A second sealing member is provided in a partial region of an inner surface of the fourth through-hole 238 (Barrowclift is clear that upper and lower cases of the module, especially the upper plate and lower plate, have similar features, ¶0030, 0047; while only illustrated for an upper plate, this means that the lower plate has a region like 218 in Figs. 16-19 that receive adhesive which forms a second sealing member, ¶0032, 0038-0041).
Per claim 9, Barrowclift teaches the limitations of claim 8. The second sealing member contacts an outer circumferential surface (best seen as 134 in Fig. 2) of the lower part of the battery cell 206 (¶0039: “both the cell end surface 132 and the lateral surface 134 receive adhesive thereon”).
Per claim 10, Barrowclift teaches the limitations of claim 9. The second sealing member is integral with the lower case 204 (the material of the sealing member is an adhesive which adheres to the lower case).
Per claim 11, Barrowclift teaches the limitations of claim 8. The second sealing member is located so as to be depressed in the inner surface of the fourth through-hole 238 (the adhesive fills 218, which is in an inner surface of 238, as best shown in Fig. 19; also see Figs. 8, 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 2. Hermann clearly teaches that the first through-hole has a larger sectional area than the second through-hole and the third through-hole (Fig. 4, ¶0028, 0029; MPEP §2125). While Hermann does not explicitly recite that the second through-hole has a larger sectional area than the third through-hole, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form those elements as such because it would have merely required a change in shape of an element. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrowclift as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Barrowclift teaches the limitations of claim 2. Barrowclift clearly teaches that the first through-hole 238 has a larger sectional area than the second through-hole 220 and the third through-hole 222 (Fig. 15; MPEP §2125). While Barrowclift does not explicitly recite that the second through-hole has a larger sectional area than the third through-hole, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form those elements as such because it would have merely required a change in shape of an element. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights