DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/05/26. The applicant has overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections, and the 102 rejection as set forth in the previous office action. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. However, the present claims are now finally rejected over a new ground of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
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) 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication CN 114649647 (heretofore CN’647) in view of the publication KR 2010-0064666 (heretofore KR’666).
As to claims 1-3, 16:
CN’647 discloses a technique/process (0062-0084; Figures 6-7) wherein a plurality of battery cells (i.e., battery terminals) are placed in a molding compartment/base and an uncured silicone mixture is injected into the molding compartment to fill the spaces between the battery cells, thereby carrying out an injecting molding step wherein the composition of the silicon mixture, the use of different additives and temperature(s), pressures and flow rate(s) of the injected silicon material are adjusted and/or modified during the injection molding step to obtain a cured/solid silicon arrangement (0062-0084; Figures 6-7). Examiner’s note: since the present claims fail to define the specific silicone mixture composition and constituents, it is deemed that the teachings of CN’647 are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed mixture. Also, note that the limitation “for an electric vehicle” is a statement of ultimately intended use of the battery. Thus, the present claims are directed to a battery per se regardless of its intended use.
PNG
media_image2.png
262
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
292
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5:
CN’647 discloses a technique/process wherein a plurality of battery cells (i.e., battery terminals) are placed in a molding compartment/base and an uncured silicone mixture is injected into the molding compartment to fill the spaces between the battery cells (0062-0084; see Figures 6-7). In this case, the molding compartment/structure is taken to represent applicant’s structurally undefined “skateboard platform”.
As to claims 6-7, 9-10, 12:
CN’647 discloses that the composition of the silicon mixture, the use of different additives and temperature(s), pressures and flow rate(s) of the injected silicon material are adjusted and/or modified during the injection molding step to obtain a cured/solid silicon arrangement (0062-0084). In this case, the use of different silicon compositions/mixtures and/or different additives inherently teach or imply different curing temperatures and viscosity. Further, since the present claims fail to define the specific silicone mixture composition and constituents, it is deemed that the teachings of CN’647 are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed mixture.
As to claims 11, 14:
CN’647 discloses that the composition of the silicon mixture, the use of different additives and temperature(s), pressures and flow rate(s) of the injected silicon material are adjusted and/or modified during the injection molding step to obtain a cured/solid silicon arrangement (0062-0084). In this case, the use of different silicon compositions/mixtures and/or different additives inherently teach or imply different curing temperatures and viscosity.
CN’647 discloses a method of making a battery cell according to the foregoing aspects. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific step of injecting a curable silicone mixture/material; and the specific varying ratio of constituents of the silicon mixture and their respective cure rate and viscosity and the specific amount of additive.
As to claims 1-3, 16:
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, KR’666 discloses a process of making a battery cell including the step of injecting a curable silicone resin/mixture into a space of a molding structure (mold) including battery components arranged/structured in/on the molding structure in order to cure such silicone resin/mixture therein while controlling the temperature and flow of the silicone resin/mixture (Abstract; see CLAIMS 2-3).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the curable silicone mixture/material of KR’666 in the injecting step of CN’647 as KR’666 teaches that the specifically disclosed curable silicone mixture/material conforms to the molding structure of the battery cell in such a way that provide structural integrity and mechanical stability, thereby preventing the slipping of a charging/discharging terminal of a protection circuit module. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Further, with respect to the specific varying ratio of constituents of the silicon mixture and their respective cure rate and viscosity and the specific amount of additive, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, change and/or modify the ratio of the silicon mixture constituents (and inherently their respective viscosity and curing temperature) because CN’647 recognizes the use of different additives or silicon mixture compositions as a variable which achieves a recognized result, thus, the claimed variation of the silicon mixture constituents ratio results from the characterization as routine experimentation of an optimum or workable range. Accordingly, the claimed variation of the silicon mixture constituents ratio is being construed as a result-effective variable. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233, 235; In re Hoeschele 160 USPQ 809, In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (MPEP 2144.05 IL Optimization of Ranges). Further, generally speaking, differences in concentration (i.e., composition, amount of material, content) and/or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration and/or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. " In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, it is prima-facie obvious to choose or select the specific concentration, amount of material, composition and/or temperature range/parameter. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Ranges.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a reasonable search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the method of making an electric vehicle battery comprising the specific combination of components/elements and method steps satisfying all the limitations recited in dependent claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/05/26, with respect to the foregoing claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection, and 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.
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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights