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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2024 and 01/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered 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 1-10 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 "a plurality of the cells" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1 because claim 1 does not recite any “cells” prior to the recitation in line 5 (“a plurality of cells” is suggested). Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending upon claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al.(CN 115084786 A, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a battery pack (Figure. 1), comprising: a tray (while Yang identifies element 200 as a “bottom plate”, there is no description of the tray. Thus, because position is relative, element 200 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited tray), an upper cover (while Yang identifies element 100 as a “top cover”, there is no description of the top cover. Thus, because position is relative, element 100 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited upper cover) detachably connected to the tray (abstract); and a plurality of the cells (electric core 300), wherein the plurality of the cells are arranged in an array (as interpreted from Figure 1) and accommodated in the tray in a detachable manner (as interpreted from Figure 1), each of the cells is provided with a top cover (top portion of 300 in Figure 4), and the top cover is provided with an electrode terminal (positive electrode 330 and negative electrode 340) facing the upper cover (interpreted from Embodiment 1, with “upper cover” being given its broadest reasonable interpretation) wherein the battery pack further comprises a bus assembly (bus bar 700), the bus assembly is integrated on the upper cover (interpreted from claim 1, with “upper cover” being given its broadest reasonable interpretation), the bus assembly comprises a conductive sheet (elastic conductive sheet 400 in Figure. 8), an elastic member (elastic conductive sheet 400 in Figure. 8), and a contact member (connection section 430), two ends of the elastic member are electrically connected to the conductive sheet and the contact member respectively (Figure 12) the contact member is detachably and electrically connected to the electrode terminal of the cell (from specification: electric core 300 and the connection section 430 are propped and electrically connected).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Long et al. (US 20250023179 A1 ).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches all claim limitations of claim 1. Yang fails to explicitly define a limitation wherein a cell position-limiting portion is provided on a lower surface of the upper cover, and the cell position-limiting portion is engaged with the top cover of the cell. However, Long teaches the limitation wherein a cell position-limiting portion (position-limiting member 41 with position-limiting beam 40a) is provided on a lower surface of the upper cover, and the cell position-limiting portion is engaged with the top cover of the cell (based on the arrangement of elements 40(41) in figure 2, and recognizing that the orientation of the structure may be inverted; accordingly, the top and bottom covers of the housing, as well as the top and bottom covers of the cell, may be interchanged). Long teaches that said cell position-limiting portion is used for limiting deformation of the battery cell (abstract). Further, Yang, and Long are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would add said cell position-limiting portion as taught by Long to said battery pack taught by Yang because such a modification would limit the deformation of the battery cell and improve the stability of it.
Regarding claim 3, Yang, as modified by Long, teaches all claim limitations of claim 2, as previously described. Yang further teaches the limitation wherein the tray is provided with cell position-limiting grooves (mounting grooves 110 in Figure. 5), and each of the cells is accommodated in the corresponding cell position-limiting groove (as mentioned in the specification that a plurality of mounting grooves 110 correspondingly matched with the plurality of electric core 300).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as modified by Long, as applied to claims 3 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 20220181730 A1) and Kaijie et al. (US 12463277 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Yang, as modified by Long, teaches all claim limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Modified Yang fails to teach limitations wherein (i) the tray further comprises an intermediate beam arranged between the array of the cells, and a height of the intermediate beam is lower than a height of the cells, (ii) a raised structure facing the intermediate beam is formed at a position of the upper cover corresponding to the intermediate beam, and the raised structure is detachably connected with the intermediate beam. However, Sun teaches the limitation (i) wherein the tray further comprises an intermediate beam (Transverse beam 500 or Longitudinal beam 600) arranged between the array of the cells (Figure 1), and a height of the intermediate beam is lower than a height of the cells (as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Figure 1 that the beam height can vary and may be higher than the cell height). Sun teaches that said beam facilitates assembly of the cells ([0093]). Further, Yang, as modified by Long, and Sun are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of battery pack.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Yang, as modified by Long, by incorporating said intermediate beam having specific height as taught by Sun to facilitate cell assembly in the battery pack.
Yang, as further modified by Long and Sun, does not teach the limitation (ii) wherein a raised structure facing the intermediate beam is formed at a position of the upper cover corresponding to the intermediate beam, and the raised structure is detachably connected with the intermediate beam. However, Kaijie teaches the limitation (ii) wherein a raised structure (second connecting portion 322, 322A in Figures 7 and 8) facing the intermediate beam (connecting beam 4 in Figure 1 or first protrusion portion 312A in Figures 7 and 8) is formed at a position of the upper cover (upper box body 32) corresponding to the intermediate beam, and the raised structure is detachably connected with the intermediate beam (can be interpreted from Figure 7). Kaijie teaches that using said raised structure is an effective way to increase the strength of the battery pack (abstract). Further, Yang, as modified by Long and Sun, and Kaijie are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of battery pack.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Yang, as further modified by Long and Sun, by incorporating said raised structure and orienting the raised structure to face the intermediate beam, as taught by Kaijie, in order to increase the structural strength of the battery pack.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guen (US 20120288744 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yang fails to teach a limitation wherein a probe is provided on the contact member, and the probe pierces into the electrode terminal of the cell. However, Geun teaches the limitation wherein a probe is provided on the contact member, and the probe pierces into the electrode terminal of the cell ([0014]: connecting member including an access protrusion 152a protruded toward the first terminal). Geun teaches that using said probe makes the connection between contact member and electrodes more stable ([0013]). In addition, Yang and Guen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery pack.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would integrate said probe as taught by Guen with said contact member as already taught in the battery pack disclosed by Yang to keep the contact member and the cell in a fixed state even if the cell shakes slightly.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yusuke et al. (WO 2021199596 A1, citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches all claim limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Yang fails to teach limitations wherein (i) a recess is provided on a lower surface of the upper cover in a direction away from the cell, and (ii) an exhaust channel is formed between the recess and a top of the cell, the exhaust channel at least covers a part above an explosion-proof valve of some of the cells. However, Yusuke teaches the limitation (i) wherein a recess is provided on a lower surface of the upper cover in a direction away from the cell (second cover 42). Yusuke also teaches the limitation (ii) wherein an exhaust channel (exhaust channels in a battery lid, located above safety vent on top of the cell, figures 14 and 15) is formed between the recess and a top of the cell, the exhaust channel at least covers a part above an explosion-proof valve of some of the cells (gas discharge safety valve). Yusuke teaches using the recess and exhaust channel helps with discharging the high-temperature and high-pressure gas (cover assembly paragraph). In addition, Yang and Yusuke are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would integrate said recess and said exhaust channel as disclosed by Yusuke to said battery pack as disclosed by Yang to obtain the predictable result of avoiding the risk of deflagration caused by the accumulation of high-pressure gas in the battery pack.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as modified by Yusuke, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 20210175572 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yang, as modified by Yusuke, teaches all claim limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Yang, as modified by Yusuke, fails to teach a limitation wherein a cooling channel is provided inside the upper cover, and the cooling channel at least partially passes through a part above the conductive sheet and/or the electrode terminal and/or the exhaust channel, a liquid inlet and a liquid outlet of the cooling channel are both located on an upper surface of the upper cover. However, He teaches wherein a cooling channel ([0182]) is provided inside the upper cover ([0182], cooling channel inside the upper panel 212), and the cooling channel at least partially passes through a part above the conductive sheet and/or the electrode terminal and/or the exhaust channel (Figure 12, cooling channel inside the panel 212 is above the cell 100) a liquid inlet (cooling liquid inlet 225) and a liquid outlet (cooling liquid outlet 226) of the cooling channel are both located on an upper surface of the upper cover (Figure 22, where 225 and 226 are located on a heat exchange plate 219 which can be a part of upper cover). He teaches using said cooling channel reduces the temperature of battery pack ([0182]). In addition, Yang, as modified by Yusuke, and He are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would attach said cooling channel taught by He to said modified battery pack disclosed by modified Yang to obtain the predictable result of controlling the temperature of battery cell using cooling channel.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as modified by Yusuke and He, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Deyong et al. (US 20240162529 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yang, as modified by Yusuke and He, teaches all claim limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Yang, as modified by Yusuke and He, does not teach a limitation wherein a fragile portion is provided between the exhaust channel and the cooling channel, the fragile portion is located above the explosion-proof valve of the cell, and the fragile portion is configured to be broken when being impacted as the explosion-proof valve of the cell is exploded, so that the cooling channel communicates with the exhaust channel. However, Deyong teaches the limitation wherein a fragile portion (fragile portion 01 and injection portion 02 in Figure 2) is provided between the exhaust channel and the cooling channel, the fragile portion is located above the explosion-proof valve of the cell ([0022], and also can be interpreted from Figure 2) and the fragile portion is configured to be broken when being impacted as the explosion-proof valve of the cell is exploded, so that the cooling channel communicates with the exhaust channel ([0022]). Deyong teaches said fragile portion is configured to establish fluid communication between the cooling channel and the exhaust channel ([0004]). In addition, Yang, as modified by Yusuke and He, and Deyong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would combine said fragile portion taught by Deyong with the modified battery pack disclosed by Yang, as modified by Yusuke and He, to obtain the predictable result of cooling down the battery cell with providing communication between cooling medium and the exhaust channel when an abnormality occurs in one of the battery cells
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 9172071 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches all claim limitations of claim 1. Yang does not teach a limitation wherein at least one of the upper cover and the tray is provided with a pre-positioning device, and the pre-positioning device is configured to keep the upper cover at a specified position relative to the tray. However, Yoshioka teaches the limitation wherein at least one of the upper covers and the tray is provided with a pre-positioning device, and the pre-positioning device is configured to keep the upper cover at a specified position relative to the tray ([0006] where the lower flange portion of the tray and the upper flange portion of the cover come into surface contact with each other). Yoshioka teaches said pre-positioning device provides a tight internal space of the packaging case for housing the cell modules by nuts/screw/bolts configuration ([0006]). In addition, Yang, and Yoshioka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would integrate said pre-positioning device disclosed by Yoshioka with said battery pack disclosed by Yang to obtain a sealed internal space for housing the cells.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as modified by Long, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. (US 20180212214 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yang, as modified by Long, teaches all claim limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Yang, as modified by Long, fails to define a limitation wherein a buffer pad made of an elastic heat-conducting material is provided between the lower surface of the upper cover and the cell, and a buffer medium made of the elastic heat-conducting material is provided between a bottom surface of the cell and the tray. However, Sakai teaches the limitation wherein a buffer pad (buffer 31 and 32) made of an elastic heat-conducting material ([0083]: resin or rubber resin with metal powder or other plastic powder) is provided between the lower surface of the upper cover and the cell ([0082]: the buffer 31 may be disposed toward the cover 40 so as to position the buffer 31 between the battery 10 and the cover 40), and a buffer medium made of the elastic heat-conducting material is provided between a bottom surface of the cell and the tray ([0082]: the buffer 32 may be disposed toward the bottom portion 23 of the holder 20 so as to position the buffer 32 between the battery 10 and the bottom portion 23 of the holder 20. A skilled artisan can interpret holder as a tray). Sakai teaches said buffer pad is used to improve the heat dissipation of the battery module ([0083]). In addition, Yang, as modified by Long, and Sakai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would add said buffer pad as taught by Sakai to the modified battery pack as taught by Yang, as modified by Long, to enhance thermal management of the battery module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILI RASSOULI whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728