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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received 03/25/2026:
Claims 1-16 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-2,5-7, and 9-12 have been amended. Claims 14-16 are new.
The previous rejections of record have been overcome in light of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “…one or more cooperating battery modules, in which a plurality of chambers are each provided for receiving, via insertion, one or more cell stacks, or battery sub-packing units 100 from a respective plurality of battery cells…”, which will be interpreted as one or more cooperating battery modules, the one or more cooperating battery modules each comprise a plurality of chambers, wherein each of the plurality of chambers comprise one or more stacked cells” where a cell stack is interpreted as a stacked cell.
Claim 3 recites “the hollow profile is configured as an extrusion profile”. Claim 12 recites “… the hollow profile is a section of the extrusion profile that has been separated from the remainder of the extrusion profile”. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Extrusion profiled can be related to any material and provide the ability to make a specific shape profile. Therefore, any battery module comprising a chamber, or configured as a hollow profile will meet the limitations of the claim. With regards to claim 12, any hollow profile will meet the limitations. There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product.
Claim 7 recites “… a flow cross-section releasable by the degassing element for degassing is larger than a cross-section of a gap between the sealing component and an inner side of the lid”. A proper interpretation of this claim cannot be made as there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. The instant disclosure teaches “In the event that gaps are formed on the seals due to changes in temperature or expansions, it is provided according to a further embodiment of the invention that the flow region releasable for degassing by the degassing opening or the degassing element is larger than a gap cross-section remaining for the sealing component between the end sections of the intermediate walls and the inner side of the lid” (P24). Examiner notes multiple speculative interpretations to the limitation in light of the disclosure; however, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. MPEP 2173.06 II For the purpose of compact prosecution, if a seal is formed between the chamber, the limitations will be met. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04
Claim Objections
Claim 4 recites “…the chambers separated by intermediate walls and running parallel…” will be interpreted as “…the chambers separated by the intermediate walls and running parallel…”
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites “…wherein the hollow profile is a section of the extrusion profile that has been separated from the remainder of the extrusion profile” dependent on claim 3 reciting “the hollow profile is configured as an extrusion profile”. Wherein the hollow profile is defined as an extrusion profile, and a hollow profile surround the plurality of chambers, “a remainder” of the profile appears undefined and one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what portion or separation this remainder forms, or does not form in the claimed battery, or if it is simply extra material. For the purpose of compact prosecution, if the profile may be formed by extrusion molding the product-by-process limitation will be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 20220173476) in view of Hwang et al. (US 20220271395)
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches a traction battery of an electrically or semi- electrically driven vehicle (P3.82), comprising: one or more cooperating battery modules 200, in which a plurality of chambers are each provided for receiving, via insertion, one or more cell stacks, or battery sub-packing units 100 from a respective plurality of battery cells (Fig. 1), wherein each of the battery modules comprises a hollow profile 220/260 that surrounds the plurality of chambers 100 in a direction transverse to a longitudinal direction, the battery module comprising the plurality of chambers separated from one another by intermediate walls, or barrier walls 240, and running parallel in the longitudinal direction of the hollow profile, and wherein the battery module is longest in the longitudinal direction (P77; Fig. 1), wherein the hollow profile is sealed at both ends with a respective lid 230/250 spanning longitudinal end-side opening cross-sections of all the chambers (Fig. 1-6).
Jeon is silent in teaching the end sections of the intermediate walls reaching to the opening cross-section are sealed with a separate sealing component against an inside of the lid; however, Hwang, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches using an intermediate wall, or barrier wall 30 to prevent the spread of flame (P41.; Fig. 4)
Hwang teaches end sections of the intermediate walls reaching to the opening cross-section are sealed with a separate sealing component against an inside of a cover to prevent consecutive explosion caused by flames and gas generated by cells and to prevent separation of the barrier from the end plate (P44-45.77; Fig. 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the intermediate walls with a sealing component against an inside of the lid to connect the intermediate wall of Jeon, to improve the prevention of spread of flame and gas, as taught by Hwang. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. 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. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jeon is silent in teaching the hollow profile is configured as an extrusion profile. However, modified Jeon teaches forming the hollow profile the same metal material as the sub-modules which may be formed by extrusion molding (P15.71-75.106-108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the hollow profile of modified Jeon by extrusion molding as a known method of formation to prevent corrosion and have a moldable case. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07 Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113
Regarding claim 4, modified Jeon teaches the chambers separated by intermediate walls and running parallel in the longitudinal direction of the hollow profile have identical cross-sections (P77; Fig. 1.3.11). Further, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, modified Jeon teaches a plurality of the cooperating battery modules may be used together (P63), but is silent in teaching each being individually sealed and spaced apart from one another.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the battery module for the plurality of battery modules, wherein each is taught as sealed by Jeon (P84-94) wherein the modules are spaced apart from one another to provide room for venting and desired power. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B The results are not unexpected because one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a plurality of modules based on design space and power parameters and providing a plurality spaced apart and individually sealed provides the exact functionality taught by modified Jeon – to provide a battery module with effective heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 12, modified Jeon teaches the hollow profile is a section of the extrusion profile that has been separated from the remainder of the extrusion profile (Fig. 1-2) Furthermore, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP 2113
Regarding claim 14, modified Jeon teaches the hollow profile comprises an exterior wall of the respective battery module (P71-73; Fig. 1-2)
Claims 2, 5-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jeon in view of Hwang as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 20140106196).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jeon in view of Hwang teaches wherein a portion of the chambers that is between the lid and the cell stacks comprises end-side cavities that are gas-tightly sealed against one another by the sealing component and gas-tightly sealed against an exterior by a further seal between the lid and outer chamber walls (P44-45.77; Fig. 3-5).
Modified Jeon in view of Hwang is silent in teaching a further seal between the lid and outer chamber walls; however, Ahn, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a battery module with a hollow profile (P27-28; Fig, 1-2).
Ahn teaches using a sealing member to couple a main body and cover together to be fluid tight with no space between portions, to allow the battery pack to be stably used for long periods of time even in high-moisture environments and to prevent damage (P33.38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to a dispose a further seal between the lid and outer chamber walls of modified Jeon to be tightly sealed from fluid entering the module leading to long term stability of the battery, as taught by Ahn. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. 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. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jeon teaches in the lid 250 spanning the chambers, at least one degassing opening 253 is formed for each of the chambers separated by intermediate walls and running parallel in the longitudinal direction of the hollow profile, wherein the degassing opening comprises a degassing element 252/254 (P81-83.92; Fig. 5B)
Regarding claim 6, modified Jeon teaches the degassing element opens upon reaching a specified pressure in one of the end-side cavities (P89-94; Fig. 4.6.11)
Regarding claim 7, modified Jeon in view of Hwang is silent in teaching a flow cross-section releasable by the degassing element for degassing is larger than a cross-section of a gap between the sealing component and an inner side of the lid; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form a flow cross-section releasable by the degassing element for degassing larger than a cross-section of a gap between the sealing component and an inner side of the lid in order to efficiently remove gas from the module, while having a tight seal between the lid and sealing component and because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. Further, a change in relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 8, modified Jeon in view of Hwang is silent in teaching the sealing component is formed from an elastomeric material to improve sealing performance, however, Ahn, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a battery module with a hollow profile (P27-28; Fig, 1-2). Ahn teaches using a sealing component formed from an elastomeric material to improve sealing performance in a battery module (P5.33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use an elastomeric material for the sealing component, as taught by Ahn in the battery of modified Jeon to improve sealing performance. Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 13, modified Jeon in view of Ahn teaches using rubber for the sealing component (P5.33). Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jeon in view of Hwang as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Fees et al. (US 20180138466).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jeon teaches an electrically driven vehicle comprising the traction battery according to claim 1 wherein a plurality of battery modules may be mounted to the bottom of a vehicle (P63.81).
Modified Jeon is silent in teaching a plurality of the cooperating battery modules are positioned transversely to a vehicle longitudinal direction and are arranged one behind the other in the vehicle longitudinal direction.
However, Fees, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches arranging a plurality of battery modules in a vehicle longitudinal direction arranged behind one another in the vehicle longitudinal direction for even weight distribution and creating aligned heat-resistant spaces (P22-24; Fig, 3-4A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to arrange a plurality of the battery modules of modified Jeon in a vehicle longitudinal direction arranged behind one another in the vehicle longitudinal direction for even weight distribution and creating aligned heat-resistant spaces, as taught by Fees. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 11, modified Jeon in view of Fees teaches a body rocker panel, wherein the length of the battery modules is configured such that the lid, which closes on both sides of the chambers, reaches into a region of the body rocker panel (Fees; Fig. 3-4)
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jeon in view of Hwang as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20150221911).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jeon in view of Hwang teaches each chamber is sealed from each other by the separate sealing component against the inside of the lid (P66-70; Fig. 4).
Modified Jeon in view of Hwang is silent in teaching the lid seals the longitudinal end-side opening cross-section of the hollow profile using a circumferential silicone seal that extends along the boundaries of the longitudinal end-side opening cross- section, wherein each chamber is sealed from each other by the separate sealing component against the inside of the lid; however, Kim, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery module case for a vehicle battery pack (abstract).
Kim teaches it is well known to use a circumferential silicone seal along a case opening to prevent external fluid and moisture from flowing in (P45; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to seal the boundaries of the longitudinal end-side opening cross- section of modified Jeon, using a circumferential silicone seal, as taught by Kim, to prevent external fluid and moisture from entering the battery, improving safety. Furthermore, in doing so, when used with the circumferential silicone seal of Lee, each chamber of modified Jeon is provided with a degassing opening (i.e. 121) arranged between the circumferential silicone seal and the separate sealing component. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. 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. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, modified Jeon teaches the longitudinal end-side opening cross-section is the smallest cross-section of the hollow profile (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights