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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 04/26/2023 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 04/26/2023 were received and are approved by the examiner.
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 1-14 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 face casting" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “approximately” in claims 7 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance that the of the space between protruding sections of the face plates of the battery modules is rendered indefinite by the use of the term. For purpose of examination, so long as protrusions appear spaced apart by the height of the cross members, it will read on claims 7 and 12.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cross members" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the cross members" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1 or 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 is currently dependent upon itself, which is improper as the statute stated above says “a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the only difference between claim 1 and claim 15 is the mention that battery modules have protruding sections with “face castings” which nest against the protruding sections of adjacent battery modules (claim 1). Although claim 15 does not mention these “face castings,” claim 15 still limits battery modules with projections to be nested into protruding sections of adjacent modules. The interpretation of “face casting” is inherent to the examiner by the limitation “battery module with protruding sections which nest into other protruding sections of adjacent modules.” Therefore, claims 1 and 15 have been examined together.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1, 4-5, 7-9, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. 20190207174) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 20240413470).
With respect to claims 1 and 15, Zhang discloses a stackable battery module mounting system (1 – lower casing) (Fig. 4), comprising:
a side wall structure (111 – enclosing wall) (Fig. 4);
a plurality of cross members (13 – support plate) extending between opposite sides of the side wall structure (111) (Fig. 4), the plurality of cross members (13) each having a plurality of first spaced apertures (fh – fixing hole) (Fig. 4);
a plurality of battery modules (2) each having a face plate (211 - side wall) on opposite sides thereof (Fig. 2 – above) and, the face plates (211) including a second apertures (TH – through hole) aligned with a respective one of the first spaced apertures (fh) of the plurality of cross members (13) (Fig. 4); and
a plurality of bolts (3 – fastener) each received in corresponding ones of the second apertures (TH) and the first spaced apertures (fh) for securing the plurality of battery modules (3) to the plurality of cross members (13) (Fig. 4).
Zhang does not disclose that each face plate having a plurality of protruding sections which nest with protruding sections of the face casting of adjacent battery modules, wherein the protruding sections include the second apertures.
Lee discloses face plates (241 – reinforcement plates combine to form 240) on either side of neighboring battery modules (10) (Figs. 2 and 3) and teaches that each face plate (241) has a plurality of protruding sections (241a1 and 241b1 – first and second reinforcement ribs) which nest with protruding section of a face casting of adjacent battery modules (projections 241a1 of face plate 241a nest with projections 241b1 of face plate 241b) (Fig. 8), and that the projections (241a1 and 241b1) include second apertures (2411h – through holes) (Fig. 8). Lee further teaches that this coupling arrangement allows proper alignment of neighboring face plates in order to form one strip where they are to be coupled ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to modify the coupling arrangements of the face plates of the battery modules disclosed by Zhang to the plurality of projections nested and secured together as taught by Lee in order to allow proper alignment of neighboring face plates in order to form one strip where they are to be coupled.
With respect to claim 4 and 18, Zhang discloses a base panel (12 – bottom plate) connected to the side wall structure (111) (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 5 and 19, Zhang discloses a plurality of cross members (13) include a plurality of upper cross members (13) that are connected to the side wall structure (111) (Fig. 4). Zhang does not disclose the presence of a second set of cross members, lower cross members, which connect to the base panel. However, Zhang does disclose opportunity to connect a bottom row of second apertures (TH) on the face plates (241) of the battery modules (2) to be connected to the base plate (12) of the mounting system (Figs. 3 and 4). Although Zhang discloses that the bolts (3) can be connected directly to the base plate (12) via the second apertures (Fig. 3), it is clear by the elevation of the rails (R) which house the second apertures (TH) on the face plates (241) that there is space below the bottom rail (R) for lower cross members to connect the face plates (241) to the base plate (12) (Fig. 2). Therefore, a simple duplication of parts to add second, lower cross members in addition to the upper cross members (13) would be an obvious design variation, as the first, upper support plates (13) are designed to securely fix the modules (2) to the system ([0053]). Applicant is reminded that that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In the instant case, further securing the battery modules is not a new or unexpected result. Therefore, the feature is not patentable.
With respect to claim 7, modified Zhang discloses face plates with protruding sections as demonstrated by the above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1. Once combined, the projections with second apertures would necessarily be spaced upward from a bottom of the batter modules by a distance equal to a vertical heigh of the cross members, as it is disclosed that the second apertures in the projections of the face plate align with the first spaced apertures on the cross members in order to be connected by a bolt (Fig. 4 of Zhang). Therefore, once combined, the plurality of projections taught by Lee applied to the rail (R) of Zhang would necessarily read on claim 7.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, modified Zhang discloses face plates with protruding sections as demonstrated by the above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1. Once combined, the number of protrusion as shown in Fig. 7 of Lee show 4 protrusions (2411) on each face plate (241a and 241b), thus falling into the claimed range of 2 and 10. Further, as shown in Fig. 7 of Lee, there necessarily are recesses formed between adjacent projections (2411) of each face plate (214a and 241b). Lee further teaches the plurality of projections and recesses allows for easier alignment of same-shaped projections to fit together and be formed into a single strip ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the 4 projections on each face plate as taught by Lee to the face plates disclosed by modified Lee in order to ensure alignment of the face plates to form a single strip.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied to claims 1, 5, and 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 20110165451).
With respect to claim 2 and 16, Zhang discloses a plurality of battery modules (2) stacked together (Fig. 3, [abstract]), but does not disclose the battery modules are stacked upon each other.
Kim discloses a battery mounting system for a batter pack (300) comprising cross members (60, 160, and 260 – reinforcement plates/70 and 170 – brackets) (Fig. 1) and teaches the battery modules (1, 100, 200) are stacked vertically via the cross members (60, 160, 260 and 70, 170) (Fig. 2). Kim further teaches that this arrangement helps to fix battery modules together in either a vertical or lateral stacked orientation without additional supports, thus limiting the weight ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to allow for the stacking of the battery modules disclosed by Zhang to be in a vertical orientation as taught by Kim as the taught arrangement allows for the vertical or lateral stacked orientation without the inclusion of further support, thus limiting the weight.
With respect to claim 6 and 20, Zhang modified by Lee and Kim teaches vertically stacked battery modules with lower and upper cross members to secure the modules. Kim further teaches that the bottom cross member (60 and 70 – using hole 60a) secures a lower battery module, while an upper cross member (260 and 70 – using hole 260a) secures a second batter module stacked upon the lower battery module (Fig. 2). Once this stacked sequence of Kim is applied to modified Zhang, the plurality of upper and lower cross members would apply to the plurality of vertically stacked battery modules disposed adjacent to one another.
With respect to claim 10, Zhang discloses a stackable battery module mounting system (1 – lower casing) (Fig. 4), comprising:
a side wall structure (111 – enclosing wall) (Fig. 4);
a plurality of cross members (13 – support plate) extending between opposite sides of the side wall structure (111) (Fig. 4), the plurality of cross members (13) each having a plurality of first spaced apertures (fh – fixing hole) (Fig. 4);
a plurality of battery modules (2) each having a face plate (211 - side wall) on opposite sides thereof (Fig. 2 – above) and, the face plates (211) including a second apertures (TH – through hole) aligned with a respective one of the first spaced apertures (fh) of the plurality of cross members (13) (Fig. 4); and
a plurality of bolts (3 – fastener) each received in corresponding ones of the second apertures (TH) and the first spaced apertures (fh) for securing the plurality of battery modules (3) to the plurality of cross members (13) (Fig. 4).
Zhang does not disclose that each face plate having a plurality of protruding sections which nest with protruding sections of the face casting of adjacent battery modules, wherein the protruding sections include the second apertures.
Lee discloses face plates (241 – reinforcement plates combine to form 240) on either side of neighboring battery modules (10) (Figs. 2 and 3) and teaches that each face plate (241) has a plurality of protruding sections (241a1 and 241b1 – first and second reinforcement ribs) which nest with protruding section of a face casting of adjacent battery modules (projections 241a1 of face plate 241a nest with projections 241b1 of face plate 241b) (Fig. 8), and that the projections (241a1 and 241b1) include second apertures (2411h – through holes) (Fig. 8). Lee further teaches that this coupling arrangement allows proper alignment of neighboring face plates in order to form one strip where they are to be coupled ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to modify the coupling arrangements of the face plates of the battery modules disclosed by Zhang to the plurality of projections nested and secured together as taught by Lee in order to allow proper alignment of neighboring face plates in order to form one strip where they are to be coupled.
Meanwhile, as demonstrated in the above rejection of claim 5, Zhang discloses a plurality of cross members (13) include a plurality of upper cross members (13) that are connected to the side wall structure (111) (Fig. 4). Zhang does not disclose the presence of a second set of cross members, lower cross members, which connect to the base panel. However, Zhang does disclose opportunity to connect a bottom row of second apertures (TH) on the face plates (241) of the battery modules (2) to be connected to the base plate (12) of the mounting system (Figs. 3 and 4). Although Zhang discloses that the bolts (3) can be connected directly to the base plate (12) via the second apertures (Fig. 3), it is clear by the elevation of the rails (R) which house the second apertures (TH) on the face plates (241) that there is space below the bottom rail (R) for lower cross members to connect the face plates (241) to the base plate (12) (Fig. 2). Therefore, a simple duplication of parts to add second, lower cross members in addition to the upper cross members (13) would be an obvious design variation, as the first, upper support plates (13) are designed to securely fix the modules (2) to the system ([0053]). Applicant is reminded that that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In the instant case, further securing the battery modules is not a new or unexpected result. Therefore, the feature is not patentable.
Meanwhile, as demonstrated in the above rejection of claim 6, Zhang modified by Lee and Kim teaches vertically stacked battery modules with lower and upper cross members to secure the modules. Kim further teaches that the bottom cross member (60 and 70 – using hole 60a) secures a lower battery module, while an upper cross member (260 and 70 – using hole 260a) secures a second batter module stacked upon the lower battery module (Fig. 2). Once this stacked sequence of Kim is applied to modified Zhang, the plurality of upper and lower cross members would apply to the plurality of vertically stacked battery modules disposed adjacent to one another.
Therefore, the first spaced apertures of the lower cross members would be 60a shown in Fig. 2 of Kim, the second spaced apertures of the upper cross members would be 260a shown in Fig. 2 of Kim, the third aperture would be TH on the bottom rail (R) of Fig. 2 of Zhang, and the fourth aperture would be TH on the upper rail (R) of Fig. 2 of Zhang. Once combined, the lower rail of Zhang modified with Lee (in order to read on nested protrusions) would be secured with a bolt to the lower cross members (60 and 70) of Kim, and the upper rail of Zhang modified with Lee (in order to read on nested protrusions) would be secured with a bot to the upper cross members (260 and 70) to form a plurality of double-stacked adjacent battery modules connected to side wall structure via cross members.
With respect to claim 12, modified Zhang discloses face plates with protruding sections as demonstrated by the above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1. Once combined, the projections with second apertures would necessarily be spaced upward from a bottom of the batter modules by a distance equal to a vertical heigh of the cross members, as it is disclosed that the second apertures in the projections of the face plate align with the first spaced apertures on the cross members in order to be connected by a bolt (Fig. 4 of Zhang). Therefore, once combined, the plurality of projections taught by Lee applied to the rail (R) of Zhang would necessarily read on claim 7.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, modified Zhang discloses face plates with protruding sections as demonstrated by the above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1. Once combined, the number of protrusion as shown in Fig. 7 of Lee show 4 protrusions (2411) on each face plate (241a and 241b), thus falling into the claimed range of 2 and 10. Further, as shown in Fig. 7 of Lee, there necessarily are recesses formed between adjacent projections (2411) of each face plate (214a and 241b). Lee further teaches the plurality of projections and recesses allows for easier alignment of same-shaped projections to fit together and be formed into a single strip ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the 4 projections on each face plate as taught by Lee to the face plates disclosed by modified Lee in order to ensure alignment of the face plates to form a single strip.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Yoon (U.S. 20250149713).
With respect to claims 3 and 17, Zhang discloses a plurality of upper cross members (13) connected to the side wall structure (111) (Fig. 4), but does not disclose how the cross members are connected to the side wall structure.
Yoon discloses cross members (200 – side plates) connected to a side wall structure (620 – side frames) (Fig. 3 and 8) and teaches the cross members (200) are connected to the side wall structure (620) via brackets (400 – end bracket) (Fig. 9). Yoon further teaches that the bracket is useful for securing the cross members (200) to the side wall structure (620) in order to secure it to the rest of the pack case ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to use the brackets taught by Yoon to secure the cross members to the side wall structure disclosed by Zhang in order to secure the cross members to the pack case.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Lee et al. and Kim et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yoon (U.S. 20250149713).
With respect to claim 11, Zhang discloses a plurality of upper cross members (13) connected to the side wall structure (111) (Fig. 4), but does not disclose how the cross members are connected to the side wall structure.
Yoon discloses cross members (200 – side plates) connected to a side wall structure (620 – side frames) (Fig. 3 and 8) and teaches the cross members (200) are connected to the side wall structure (620) via brackets (400 – end bracket) (Fig. 9). Yoon further teaches that the bracket is useful for securing the cross members (200) to the side wall structure (620) in order to secure it to the rest of the pack case ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to use the brackets taught by Yoon to secure the cross members to the side wall structure disclosed by Zhang in order to secure the cross members to the pack case.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727