DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2024/0347840 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
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 4-6 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 4 recites the limitation “the module-ends” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1, where claim 1 recites “an L-shaped module-end.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation to be recited in plural in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what element or feature recited in claims 4 or 1 is intended to be limited by the module-ends species recited in claim 4. For the purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as instead reciting “…stacking direction [[and]] forming [[the]] module-ends.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the battery cell” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 6 ultimately depends from claim 1, where claim 1 recites “a plurality of battery cells.” Therefore, it is unclear which battery cell recited in claim 1 is intended to be limited by the singular battery cell species recited in claim 6. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as instead reciting “…each facing the battery cells.”
Claims 5 and 6 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly dependent upon a previously rejected claim and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issue(s) identified above.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 205645950 U, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Yang”), in view of Yoon (US 2012/0009455 A1; “Yoon”). Howard et al. (US 2009/0208829 A1; “Howard”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a power battery pack that supplies power for electric vehicles (a vehicular battery pack) [0002, 0006, 0009, 0012-0014, 0025, 0028, FIG. 1] comprising an 18650 lithium battery pack (a battery module) [element 1, 0008, 0013, 0025, FIG. 1], and a housing surrounding the battery pack (a surrounding frame surrounding the battery module) [element 5, 0025, FIG. 3], wherein the housing includes internal reinforcing ribs (an extending portion protruding inwardly) [element 6, 0008, 0025, FIGs. 3-4]. As evidenced by Howard, 18650 battery packs comprise a plurality of stacked 18650 battery cells [Howard, 0023-0025, 0028, FIGs. 1 and 4B], thereby, in totality reading on a battery module including a plurality of battery cells that supply power to a motor for driving a vehicle, as claimed. The battery pack, including end plates, has inverted L-shaped first and second grooves and a third groove [elements 2, 3, and 4 respectively, 0025, FIGs. 1-3], each facing the bottom of the housing and supported by the internal reinforcing ribs (the battery module includes an L-shaped module-end supported by the extending portion).
Yang remains silent regarding a bottom plate installed below the battery pack, the housing disposed on the bottom plate, and that the internal reinforcing rib is connected to the bottom plate.
Yoon is directed towards a battery module, including a high-capacity battery used as a power source for driving motors of hybrid cars [0005-0006, 0009-0011, 0055, FIGs. 1, 6, and 8-11]. Yoon teaches that the battery module includes a plurality of adjoining battery cells, arranged in a stack extending in a first direction [0010-0011, 0095, FIG. 1]. Furthermore, a heat dissipation member [element 126, 0049, 0068-0069, FIG. 1] is below the battery module and includes a heat dispersion member [element 125] with heat pipes [0016-0024, 0049, 0068-0069, 0078-0086], thereby providing a coolant path for a coolant to flow inside the heat dispersion member [0016-0024, 0068-0069, FIGs. 1-2].
Yang and Yoon each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a vehicular battery module. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack of Yang to add the heat dissipation member of Yoon such that it is installed below the battery pack, wherein the housing is disposed on the heat dissipation member, the internal reinforcing ribs are connected to the heat dissipation member, and the L-shaped first and second grooves face the heat dissipation member, so as to facilitate quicker heat dissipation, thereby ensuring that the battery cells can be uniformly cooled [Yoon, 0072, 0075].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications (hereinafter “Yang/Yoon”), the battery pack of Yang/Yoon would have a heat dissipation member installed below the battery pack. Furthermore, the housing would be disposed on the heat dissipation member, with the internal reinforcing ribs connected to the heat dissipation member and the housing, and the L-shaped first and second grooves facing the heat dissipation member (a battery module including a plurality of battery cells that supply power to a motor for driving a vehicle, a bottom plate installed below the battery module, a surrounding frame disposed on the bottom plate, the surrounding frame connected to the bottom plate, and an L-shaped module-end facing the bottom plate).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the bottom plate defined by claim 2. That is, the heat dissipation member of Yang/Yoon includes a heat dispersion member [Yoon, element 125] with heat pipes [Yoon, 0016-0024, 0049, 0068-0069, 0078-0086], thereby providing a coolant path for a coolant to flow inside the heat dispersion member [Yoon, 0016-0024, 0068-0069, FIGs. 1-2] (the bottom plate is a cooling plate that cools the battery module and includes a cooling passage through which coolant flows).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Yang discloses an 18650 lithium battery pack [Yang, element 1, 0008, 0013, 0025, FIG. 1], and as evidenced by Howard, 18650 battery packs comprise a plurality of stacked 18650 battery cells [Howard, 0023-0025, 0028, FIGs. 1 and 4B], thereby reading on the battery module includes a cell stack in which the battery cells are stacked along a predetermined stacking direction, as claimed. Yang further discloses a pair of end plates disposed on both end faces of the cell stack in the first direction forming the module-ends (a pair of end plates disposed on both end faces of the cell stack in the stacking direction forming module-ends; see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation) [FIG. 1, see below for Figure 1. Annotated FIG. 1 of Yang].
PNG
media_image1.png
419
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated FIG. 1 of Yang.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yoon, evidenced by Howard, as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Keiji et al. (JP 2002/141036 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Keiji”).
Regarding claim 3, Yang/Yoon teaches the vehicular battery pack set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Yang/Yoon remains silent regarding the inverted L-shaped first and second grooves are coupled to the internal reinforcing ribs via a spacer and is disposed with a gap between the inverted L-shaped first and second grooves and the internal reinforcing ribs.
Keiji is directed towards a battery assembly for a vehicle, including a plurality of cells stacked together [0001, 0006, 0010]. Keiji teaches the cell stack is placed on a mounting member, including a connecting mounting member, in order to restrain it [0006-0007]. Further, the connecting mounting member includes two rail-shaped members [element 40, FIG. 1, 0009, 0012], which can withstand stress generated by thermal expansion of the cells [0009], wherein one is attached on both sides to the L-shaped portion of L-shaped end plates [0012, 0015, FIG. 1].
Yang, Yoon, and Keiji each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a vehicular battery module. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack of Yang/Yoon to add the two rail-shaped members of Keiji, one between and connecting each of the L-shaped first and second grooves and the internal reinforcing ribs, so that the rail-shaped members can receive stress caused by thermal expansion of the cells [Keiji, 0009, 0019].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications (hereinafter “Yang/Yoon/Keiji”), the power battery pack of Yang/Yoon/Keiji would have two rail-shaped members, wherein the L-shaped first and second grooves are coupled to the internal reinforcing ribs via the rail-shaped members and is disposed with a gap between the L-shaped first and second grooves and the internal reinforcing ribs, due to the slight angle on the L-shaped first and second grooves [Yang, FIG. 2], thereby not being able to be in flush contact with the rail-shaped members (the module-end is coupled to the extending portion via a spacer and is disposed with a gap between the module-end and the extending portion).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yoon, evidenced by Howard, as applied to claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Lu et al. (US 2023/0061286 A1; “Lu”).
Regarding claim 5, Yang/Yoon teaches the vehicular battery pack set forth above in the rejection of claim 4. Yang/Yoon further discloses an internal reinforcing rib disposed on the third groove, extending in a cross direction that intersects the stacking direction and fixed to the housing (a first stiffener plate extending in a cross direction that intersects the stacking direction and fixed to the surrounding frame) [Yang, FIG. 3, see below for Figure 2. Annotated FIG. 3 of Yang] (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation).
Furthermore, in view of ¶19 above, Yang/Yoon teaches that the internal reinforcing ribs, including the internal reinforcing rib disposed on the third groove, would be fixed/connected to both the heat dissipation member and the housing (fixed to the bottom plate and the surrounding frame).
Yang/Yoon remains silent regarding the battery pack includes a mid-plate disposed in an intermediate portion of the cell stack in the stacking direction and fixed to the first stiffener plate.
Lu is directed towards an electric vehicle, comprising a pouch module with at least two module assemblies and an intermediate end plate [Abstract, 0005, 0021]. Lu teaches the intermediate end plate [element 4, FIGs. 5-6] for fixing the module assemblies is provided in the middle of adjacent module assemblies in the stacking direction [0005, 0008, 0034-0035]. The intermediate end plate is provided with a convex plate and two insulating layers on both sides corresponding to the module assemblies [0009-0010], and is stepped over and fixed to the intermediate beam of the external case to secure the assembly [0023, 0034, FIGs. 1-5].
Yang, Yoon, and Lu each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a vehicular battery module. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack of Yang/Yoon to add the intermediate end plate of Lu, such that it is between cell stacks of the battery pack, along the first/stacking direction, and stepped over/accommodating and fixed to the internal reinforcing rib disposed on the third groove, so as to secure the battery pack and better utilized the housing space [Lu, 0023].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications (hereinafter “Yang/Yoon/Lu”), the battery pack of Yang/Yoon/Howard/Lu would have the intermediate end plate disposed in an intermediate portion of the cell stack in the first direction, and accommodating and fixed to the internal reinforcing rib disposed on the third groove (a mid-plate disposed in an intermediate portion of the cell stack in the stacking direction and fixed to the first stiffener plate).
PNG
media_image2.png
301
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated FIG. 3 of Yang
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 above reads on the mid-plate defined by claim 6. The intermediate end plate is provided with a convex plate and two insulating layers on both sides corresponding to the module assemblies [Lu, 0009-0010], and is stepped over and fixed to the intermediate beam of the external case to secure the assembly [Lu, 0023, 0034, FIGs. 1-5]. The two insulating layers on both sides of the convex plate each have a main face that faces respective cell stacks [Lu, FIGs. 2 and 5-6, see below for Figure 3. Annotated FIG. 5 of Lu], and reads on a pair of main faces each facing the battery cell, as claimed. The intermediate end plate has a plurality of side faces each connecting outer edges of the two main faces, and a recess extending in the cross direction at one of the side faces and accommodating the internal reinforcing rib disposed on the third groove therein [Lu, 0023, FIGs. 2 and 5-6, see below for Figure 3. Annotated FIG. 5 of Lu].
PNG
media_image3.png
297
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated FIG. 5 of Lu
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yoon, evidenced by Howard, as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Howard and Kawabe et al. (US 2018/0237075 A1; “Kawabe”).
Regarding claim 7, Yang/Yoon teaches the vehicular battery pack set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Yang/Yoon further teaches a plurality of battery packs are arranged in parallel [Yang, element 1, 0008, 0025, FIGs. 1 and 3].
Yang/Yoon does not explicitly teach that the plurality of battery packs arranged in parallel are in postures that stacking directions along which the battery cells are stacked are parallel to each other, and remains silent regarding a second stiffener plate extends along the stacking directions between the battery modules adjacent to each other and is fixed to the surrounding frame, wherein the second stiffener plate includes an L-shaped plate-end facing the bottom plate and supported by the extending portion.
Howard is directed towards an electric vehicle battery pack using a large number of small 18650-type lithium-ion battery cells [0023-0024]. Howard teaches that the battery pack comprises a plurality of stacked 18650 battery cells along a predetermined stacking direction [Howard, 0023-0025, 0028, FIGs. 1 and 4B], and that the cells in each block/pack can be electrically connected in parallel and/or in series [Howard, 0023-0024, FIGs. 1 and 4B].
Kawabe is directed towards a vehicle body including a battery pack [0002, 0007, FIGs. 1, 10, and 11]. Kawabe teaches a battery pack structure [element C2, 0027, FIGs. 1 and 12] wherein the battery pack [element 51, 0123-0124, FIG. 11] includes a second battery cross member [element 58b, 0126, 0132, 0141, 0157, FIGs. 10-11] fixed to a battery frame [element 57] that extends along stacking directions/a width direction between battery modules [element 52, 0026, 0131, 0140-0141] adjacent to each other [0126, FIGs. 10-11]. The second battery cross member has a flange [element 56, 0134, 0158, FIGs. 11-12] that creates an L-shape facing a bottom battery tray surface and supported by the battery frame [0134, 0158, FIGs. 11-12].
Yang, Yoon, Howard, and Kawabe each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a vehicular battery module. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power battery pack of Yang/Yoon so that the plurality of battery packs arranged in parallel are explicitly in postures that stacking directions along which the plurality of stacked 18650 battery cells are stacked are parallel to each other, so that the cells in each block/pack can be electrically connected in parallel and/or in series so as to provide a collective voltage, as recognized by Howard [Howard, 0023-0024, FIGs. 1 and 4B]. Furthermore, to add the second battery cross member of Kawabe, inclusive of the L-shape flange, where the second battery cross member extends along stacking directions/a width direction between battery modules adjacent to each other and fixed to the housing, and so that the L-shape flange faces downwards and is supported by the internal reinforcing rib disposed on the third groove. Doing so would decrease a force caused by a load input via a side collision of the vehicle and/or promote efficient transmission of the load to the inner side in the vehicle width direction, thereby protecting the battery pack in a side collision [Kawabe, 0027, 0169, 0173, 0176, 0178, 0180, 0184].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications (hereinafter “Yang/Yoon/Howard/Kawabe”), the power battery pack of Yang/Yoon/Howard/Kawabe with the plurality of battery packs arranged in parallel would be explicitly in postures that stacking directions along which the plurality of stacked 18650 battery cells are stacked are parallel to each other (a plurality of the battery modules arranged in parallel in postures that stacking directions along which the battery cells are stacked are parallel to each other). Additionally, the second battery cross member, inclusive of the L-shape flange, would extend along stacking directions/a width direction between battery packs adjacent to each other and would be fixed to the housing, wherein the L-shape flange faces downwards and is supported by the internal reinforcing rib disposed on the third groove (a second stiffener plate that extends along the stacking directions between the battery modules adjacent to each other and that is fixed to the surrounding frame, wherein the second stiffener plate includes an L-shaped plate-end facing the bottom plate and supported by the extending portion).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yoon, evidenced by Howard, as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Ren et al. (CN 210200841 U, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Ren”).
Regarding claim 8, Yang/Yoon teaches the vehicular battery pack set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Yang/Yoon further teaches a hallow is formed in the internal reinforcing rib disposed on the third groove (the surrounding frame includes a hollow formed in the extending portion) [Yang, FIG. 4].
Yang/Yoon remains silent regarding the housing is an aluminum extruded profile.
Ren is directed towards a power vehicle battery pack with battery modules, accommodated within an upper housing and lower housing [0002, 0004, 0007, 0030]. Ren teaches the lower housing [element 100, 0007, 0026, 0030-0031, FIGs. 1-2 and 4] is an aluminum profile extrusion welded structure [0037].
Yang, Yoon, and Ren each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a vehicular battery module. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housing of Yang/Yoon so that it is made out of aluminum, in order to achieve weight reduction, cost reduction, and easy assembly as taught by Ren [Ren, 0006, 0037].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications (hereinafter “Yang/Yoon/Ren”), the power battery pack of Yang/Yoon/Ren would have the housing, inclusive of an extruding profile with the internal reinforcing ribs, made out of aluminum (the surrounding frame is an aluminum extruded profile).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Yoon, evidenced by Howard, as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Minoru et al. (JP 2014/101009 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Minoru”).
Regarding claim 9, Yang/Yoon teaches an electric vehicle (an electric truck) [Yang, 0002, 0006, 0009, 0012-0014, 0025, 0028] comprising the vehicular battery pack set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Yang/Yoon remains silent regarding a pair of side rails disposed above the vehicular battery pack to suspend and support the vehicular battery pack.
Minoru is directed towards protecting batteries mounted in a vehicle [0001, 0004-0005]. Minoru teaches that a mounting member [element 2, 0006-0007, 0011, 0016, FIG. 1] includes a pair of side rails disposed above a vehicular battery module [0011, 0016, FIG. 1], to suspend and support the vehicular battery module [0006-0009, 0011, FIG. 1].
Yang, Yoon, and Minoru each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a vehicular battery module. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power battery pack of Yang/Yoon to add the mounting member of Minoru, of which includes a pair of side rails disposed above a vehicular battery module, for attaching and arranging wiring members, thereby protecting wiring harnesses, and leading to less cross-sectional deformation [Minoru, 0007]. Additionally, impact force applied to the side frame of the vehicle is thereby absorbed by the entire protective structure [Minoru, 0006, 0009].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications (hereinafter “Yang/Yoon/Minoru”), the power battery pack of Yang/Yoon/Minoru would have the mounting member, including a pair of side rails disposed above the power battery pack, to suspend and support the power battery pack (a pair of side rails disposed above the vehicular battery pack to suspend and support the vehicular battery pack).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Ogino, US 2020/0176747 A1 – is directed towards a battery pack, including a plurality of battery modules for a vehicle, to supply high electric power [0001, 0004-0006]. Ogino teaches a linkage [element 97, 0038], that has a high rigidity and links first and second battery modules/cell stacks [0038, FIG. 2].
Günther, US 2020/0295322 A1 – is directed towards a battery housing for a vehicle [Abstract, 0001, 0031]. Gunther teaches the housing includes a compartment structure [element 7, 0031, FIGs. 1, 3-6] with a longitudinal strut [element 8] and multiple transverse struts [element 9].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights