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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-14, and 16-21 are under examination.
Claim 15 is canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2016/0093854 A1), hereinafter Tyler, in view of Potts et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2013/0108898 A1), hereinafter Potts.
Regarding claim 1, Tyler discloses a battery module, comprising:
one or more first battery cells; and one or more second battery cells (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0054] whereby different types of the lithium ion battery module ref. 28 may utilize a particular type of prismatic battery cells, etc., as shown in Fig. 3, that is prismatic battery cells ref. 44, etc., and whereby as disclosed in [0072] battery modules ref. 28 may have any number of battery cells ref. 44, as shown in Fig. 3, such as six, twelve, or twenty of the battery cells ref. 44, etc., such that as disclosed in [0061] the cells ref. 44 in a particular column refs. 80, 82 (there are two such columns in the illustrated modules ref. 28), etc., and as disclosed in [0062] (also see also see [0032], [0035], [0039]-[0042], [0050], [0073], [0095]-[0096], [0100], Figs. 6-10, 12, 18) it is now recognized that a combination of the cell chemistry (e.g., NMC/LTO battery cells), cell shape, (e.g., prismatic), and cell size may facilitate production of the modules ref. 28, and may provide a desired energy density for the modules ref. 28, , such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said first/second battery cells is a designation and may be any of the battery cells as disclosed by Tyler, such as a first column ref. 80 and a second column ref. 82 as shown in at least Fig. 7 and also as shown in Fig. 3, which is at least an example that provides an equivalent number of battery cells in each column, and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Furthermore, Tyler further discloses in [0102] Fig. 10 is an example of the difference in cell configuration between a first battery cell ref. 44A that exhibits swelling during operations (e.g., an NMC/graphite cell) and a second battery ref. 44B that exhibits little to no swelling during operation (e.g., an NMC/LTO cell), etc. (also see [0103]-[0104], [0129], Fig. 17, [0135], Fig. 18), which at least provides one or more first battery cells and one or more second battery cells, and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Since Tyler discloses the battery cells as discussed above, such that a first and second battery cell(s) may be any first and second battery cells, and further discloses a first column ref. 80 and a second column ref. 82 as shown in at least Figs. 3 and 7, and/or a first prismatic battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic battery cell ref. 44B, etc., as discussed above, these are at least examples that provides an equivalent number of battery cells in each column and/or an equivalent first/second battery cell, such that this at least provides a value of a that is at least greater than and/or equal to b, which is within the claimed range of a first number a of the one or more first battery cells is greater than or equal to a second number b of the one or more second battery cells, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.)
Tyler further discloses in [0070] dimensions, shapes, and chemistries of the battery cells ref. 44 may be designed to achieve a desired form factor, volume, and output, etc., whereby dimensions of the prismatic battery cell ref. 44, as shown in Fig. 6, include a cell length (CL) along the sides ref. 72, 74, a cell width (CW) along the terminal and base portions ref. 62, 70, and a cell thickness (CT) extending between the first and second faces refs. 76, 78, etc. Tyler further discloses in [0071] based on the dimensions set forth above for the battery cells ref. 44, the voltage of the battery modules ref. 28, and the number of battery cells ref. 44 used in the modules ref. 28, an energy density (e.g., average) of the battery cells ref. 44 may be determined, such that the energy density determined from the dimensions set forth above may be volume-based (e.g., a volumetric energy density), as well as example weights of the battery cells ref. 44 are also provided herein to describe the energy density based on their mass (e.g., a gravimetric energy density). (also see [0008]-[0009], [0074], [0077]-[0078], [0080]-[0081])
Tyler further discloses in [0075] using the dimensions set forth above for the battery cell ref. 44 (where CL is 140 mm, CT is 14 mm, and CW is 112 mm, a volume of 0.22 L), a capacity range of between 8 Ah and 12 Ah, and nominal voltage ranging from 2.0V to 4.2 V, the volumetric energy density of the battery cells ref. 44 may range between 73 Watt hours per Liter (Wh/L) and 230 Wh/L, depending on the nominal voltage and capacity of the cells ref. 44. (also see more specific examples of the volumetric energy density of the battery cells ref. 44 in Tables 1-4).
Tyler further discloses in [0055] the arrangement of the battery cells ref. 44 within the housings ref. 40, as well as their respective sizes, as described in further detail below, are the primary factors that control a respective height H1 (shown in Fig. 4) of the lithium ion battery module ref. 28A and a respective height H2 (shown in Fig. 4) of the lithium ion battery module ref. 28B, the third lithium ion battery module ref. 28C has a significantly larger height H3 (shown in Fig. 4) compared to the first and second lithium ion battery modules ref. 28A, 28B, whereby this is due, at least in part, to the additional number of battery cells ref. 44 required for the lithium ion battery module ref. 28 to reach a higher voltage (e.g., 48V using a third number, such as 20, of the same type of battery cells connected in series).
Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 1, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 230 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 140 mm × 112 mm × 14 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a first battery cell and a second battery cell that may have, for example, identical and/or substantially identical volumetric energy densities (i.e., 230 Wh/L) and identical and/or substantially identical cell thicknesses (CT) of 14 mm, and which at least provides a first product X1 of a first volumetric energy density E1 and a first thickness T1 of each of the one or more battery cells (i.e., 230 Wh/L × 14 mm) and a second product X2 of a second volumetric energy density E2 and a second thickness T2 of each of the one or more battery cells (i.e., 230 Wh/L × 14 mm), such that X1/X2 = 1, which is a value within the claimed range of a first product X1 of a first volumetric energy density E1 and a first thickness T1 of each of the one or more first battery cells and a second product X2 of a second volumetric energy density E2 and a second thickness T2 of each of the one or more second battery cells satisfy: 0.35≤X1/X2≤18, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Tyler further discloses in [0090] the present disclosure is not limited to these materials, and the battery cells ref. 44 may use any one or a combination of positive electrode active materials and negative electrode active materials, etc.
However, Tyler is silent as to each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery.
Potts teaches a modular battery control system architecture (Title). Potts further teaches in [0018] the cells of any battery module of the battery system may be of varying chemistry makeup such that the battery system ref. 100 may include a variety of different types of batteries, for example, module ref. 1 (112) of power unit ref. 1 (104) may include a first chemical type of battery while module ref. 1 (114) of power unit ref. 2 (106) may include a second chemical type of battery, whereby for example, the cells may include any combination of lithium ion, sodium sulfur, lithium-sulfur, nickel-cadmium, nickel metal hydride, lead acid and any other conventional or to be developed cell type, and thus, through this modular nature of the power units, each power unit ref. 104-108 of the battery system ref. 100 may include any type of battery chemistry that provides the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, which at least provides each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that since the cells may include any combination of lithium ion, sodium sulfur, etc., that this at least provides first and/or second battery cells comprise sodium and/or lithium-ion battery(s), lacking any further distinction thereof (also see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Tyler with the teachings of Potts, whereby the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., as disclosed by Tyler further includes each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery as taught by Potts so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 2, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses X1/X2 = 1 as discussed above in claim 1, this at least provides a value within the claimed range of X1 and X2 satisfy: 0.45≤X1/X2≤4.5, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 3, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses a = b as discussed above in claim 1 in one or more embodiments, this at least provides a value that is within the claimed range of the first number a and the second number b satisfy: 1≤a/b≤50, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 1, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 230 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 140 mm × 112 mm × 14 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a first battery cell and a second battery cell that may have, for example, identical and/or substantially identical volumetric energy densities (i.e., 230 Wh/L) and identical and/or substantially identical cell thicknesses (CT) of 14 mm, and which at least provides a first product X1 of a first volumetric energy density E1 and a first thickness T1 of each of the one or more battery cells (i.e., 230 Wh/L × 14 mm) and a second product X2 of a second volumetric energy density E2 and a second thickness T2 of each of the one or more battery cells (i.e., 230 Wh/L × 14 mm), such that the second volumetric energy density E2 is less than 600 Wh/L (i.e., 230 Wh/L), T1/T2 = 1 and a/b = 1 so that (T1/T2)*(a/b) = 1, which is a value within the claimed range of the second volumetric energy density E2 is less than 600 Wh/L, and the first thickness T1, the second thickness T2, the first number a, and the second number b satisfy: 1≤(T1/T2)*(a/b)≤1000, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 1, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 230 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 140 mm × 112 mm × 14 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., and further discloses in Table 2, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 251 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 139 mm × 111 mm × 13 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., such that first/second are simply designations, and such that since a first/second battery cell(s) is provided, this at least provides a first thickness T1 = 14 mm and a second thickness T2 = 13 mm, such that T1/T2 = 1.08, which is a value within the claimed range of the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 satisfy: 1<T1/T2≤20, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.), lacking any further distinction thereof.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 1, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 230 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 140 mm × 112 mm × 14 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc. as discussed above in claim 1, this at least provides V1 = V2, such that V1/V2 = 1, which is a value within the claimed range of a first volume V1 of each of the one or more first battery cells and a second volume V2 of each of the one or more second battery cells satisfy: 1≤V1/V2≤20, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 7, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 1, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 230 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 140 mm × 112 mm × 14 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a first battery cell and a second battery cell that may have, for example, identical and/or substantially identical volumetric energy densities (i.e., 230 Wh/L), such that E1 = E2, and E1/E2 = 1, which is a value within the claimed range of the first volumetric energy density E1 and the second volumetric energy density E2 satisfy: 0.3≤E1/E2≤1, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 1, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 230 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 140 mm × 112 mm × 14 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a first battery cell and a second battery cell that may have, for example, identical and/or substantially identical volumetric energy densities (i.e., 230 Wh/L), etc., which at least provides a value that is within the claimed range of the first volumetric energy density E1 satisfies: 155 Wh/L≤E1≤500 Wh/L, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 10, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 4 an example gravimetric energy density for prismatic battery cells of 126 Wh/kg for a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a first battery cell and a second battery cell that may have, for example, identical and/or substantially identical gravimetric energy density(s), such that G1 = G2, and G1/G2 = 1, which is a value within the claimed range of a first gravimetric energy density G1 of each of the one or more first battery cells and a second gravimetric energy density G2 of each of the one or more second battery cells satisfy: 0.3≤G1/G2≤1, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 11, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 10. Since Tyler discloses above in claim 10 a gravimetric energy density for prismatic battery cells of 126 Wh/kg for a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, this at least provides a value that is within the claimed range of the first gravimetric energy density G1 satisfies: 65 Wh/kg≤G1≤235 Wh/kg, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 13, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 1, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 230 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 140 mm × 112 mm × 14 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a first battery cell and a second battery cell that may have, for example, identical and/or substantially identical cross-section area(s) such that since the CT = 14 mm, this provides that said cross-sectional area(s) of the first battery is 140 mm × 112 mm, which is in at least an embodiment is identical and/or substantially identical to the second battery cross-sectional area, thus reading on, “in a cross section perpendicular to a thickness direction of the one or more first battery cells, the one or more first battery cells and the one or more second battery cells have a substantially same cross-sectional area”, and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Furthermore, since Tyler discloses a cell length (CL) of 140 mm and a cell width (CW) of 112 mm for at least a first/second battery cell as discussed above, this at least provides a first/second height H1 = H2 = 140 mm, and a first/second width W1 = W2 = 112 mm, so that H1/H2 = 1 and W1/W2 = 1, which are values within the claimed ranges a first height H1 of each of the one or more first battery cells and a second height H2 of each of the one or more second battery cells satisfy: 0.9≤H1/H2≤1.1; and a first width W1 of each of the one or more first battery cells and a second width W2 of each of the one or more second battery cells satisfy: 0.9≤W1/W2≤1.1 thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 14, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Tyler discloses the first/second battery cells as discussed above in claim 1 in at least one or more embodiments. Tyler further discloses in [0055] the arrangement of the battery cells ref. 44 within the housings ref. 40, as well as their respective sizes, as described in further detail below, are the primary factors that control a respective height H1 (shown in Fig. 4) of the lithium ion battery module ref. 28A and a respective height H2 (shown in Fig. 4) of the lithium ion battery module ref. 28B, the third lithium ion battery module ref. 28C has a significantly larger height H3 (shown in Fig. 4) compared to the first and second lithium ion battery modules ref. 28A, 28B, whereby this is due, at least in part, to the additional number of battery cells ref. 44 required for the lithium ion battery module ref. 28 to reach a higher voltage (e.g., 48V using a third number, such as 20, of the same type of battery cells connected in series), which at least provides the one or more first battery cells are connected in series to the one or more second battery cells so as to reach a higher voltage, and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 16, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Tyler discloses the first/second battery cell(s) as discussed above in claim 1. Tyler further discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, a third prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44C, etc., such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that, for example, battery cell ref. 44A, battery cell ref. 44C, etc., at least provides a plurality of first battery cells, and battery cell ref. 44B at least provides said second battery cell, such that said first/second battery cells are designations, and since no further structural detail is provided this is at least met by Tyler under broadest reasonable interpretation, whereby said second battery cell ref. 44B, for example, is at least spaced apart by first battery cell(s) refs. 44A and 44C as shown in at least Annotated Fig. 18, thus reading on, “the one or more first battery cells include a plurality of first battery cells; and the one or more second battery cells are spaced apart by the plurality of the first battery cells”, lacking any further distinction thereof.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
1456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 18 (Tyler)
Regarding claim 17, Tyler discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Tyler further discloses the first/second battery cell(s) as discussed above in claim 1. Tyler further discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, a third prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44C, etc., such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that, for example, battery cell ref. 44A, battery cell ref. 44C, etc., at least provide first battery cell(s), and battery cell ref. 44B at least provides a said second battery cell, such that said first/second battery cells are designations, and since no further structural detail is provided this is at least met by Tyler under broadest reasonable interpretation, whereby said second battery cell ref. 44B, for example, is at least in a middle of the battery module ref. 270 so as to be between battery cell(s) refs. 44A and 44C as shown in at Annotated Fig. 18 above in claim 16 (also see [0132]-[0136]), thus reading on, “at least one of the one or more second battery cells is disposed at an end or in a middle of the battery module”, lacking any further distinction thereof.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Regarding claim 18, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Tyler further discloses in [0045] the battery system ref. 12 includes an energy storage component ref. 14, etc., whereby as disclosed in [0049] the energy storage component ref. 14 may include multiple battery modules, etc., (also see [0047]-[0051], Fig. 2), which at least provides a battery pack, comprising the battery module according to claim 1, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that an energy storage component comprising one or more battery modules at least provides a battery pack, lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said battery pack.
Furthermore, since Tyler discloses the battery module as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claim 1 and the instant claim is the preamble reciting a battery pack comprising said battery module, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Regarding claim 19, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery pack as discussed above in claim 18. Tyler further discloses in [0031] the battery system(s) described herein may be used to provide power to various types of electric vehicles (xEVs) and other high voltage energy storage/expending applications, etc., which at least provides an electrical apparatus (also see [0004], [0043]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, ref. 10), comprising the battery pack according to claim 18, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that electric vehicles (xEVs) and/or other high voltage energy storage/expending applications are at least electrochemical apparatus(s so to house said battery system, energy storage component, module(s), etc.), lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said electrochemical apparatus.
Furthermore, since Tyler discloses the battery pack, battery module, etc., as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claim 18 and the instant claim is the preamble reciting an electrical apparatus comprising the battery pack comprising said battery module, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler and Potts as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, or in the alternative, and further in view of Milobar et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2021/0151815 A1), hereinafter Milobar.
Regarding claim 9, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1, wherein the second volumetric energy density E2 is disclosed (see e.g. E2 value in Tyler as discussed above in claim 1 [0075]).
In regards to the claim limitation “E2 satisfies: 450 Wh/L≤E2≤800 Wh/L,” since Tyler discloses in [0074] the volumetric energy density of a particular battery cell may be obtained using the volume and energy of the battery cell ref. 44, the energy of each battery cell ref. 44, as calculated herein, is the product of the nominal voltage and the capacity of the battery cell ref. 44, the volume is then divided into the calculated energy to obtain the volumetric energy density, and the gravimetric energy density may also be obtained by dividing the weight of the battery cell ref. 44 into the calculated energy of the cell ref. 44, etc., and further discloses in [0081] other volumes and shapes may fall within the scope of the present disclosure, and Tyler further discloses in [0072] the battery cells ref. 44 may have a capacity that ranges between 8 Ah and 12 Ah, and the nominal voltages of the battery cells may be, for example, 3.9 V, 4.0 V, 4.1 V, 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that changing the volume of said battery cell would yield a larger volumetric energy density, such that as an example provided by the examiner, when one having ordinary skill halves the 0.22 L volume as shown in Table 1, etc., this provides a 0.11 L volume, such that when the capacity = 12 Ah and the voltage is 4.2, at least provides a volumetric energy density of 458 Wh/L, which is a value within the claimed range of the second volumetric energy density E2 satisfies: 450 Wh/L≤E2≤800 Wh/L, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Because Tyler discloses the claimed range of the second volumetric energy density E2 as discussed above, the claim limitation is met. Furthermore, Tyler provides an express motivation to change size/shape of said battery cells, whereby the skilled artisan would appreciate before the effective filing date that since Tyler further discloses in [0076] it has been found that the dimensions of the battery cells ref. 44 set forth above, in combination with the cathode and anode electrode active material chemistries set forth above, may enable the battery modules ref. 28 to have certain dimensions conforming to certain desired standards while still providing a desired electrical output, etc., that changes in size/shape of said battery cell(s) as disclosed by Tyler is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, IV., B.) so as to provide battery modules with certain dimensions conforming to certain desired standards while still providing a desired electrical output.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner additionally introduces Milobar to further teach the E2 range, whereby Milobar discloses in [0110] Fig. 1A shows optional housing ref. 102 at least partially enclosing first electrochemical cell ref. 110 and second electrochemical cell ref. 120, according to certain embodiments, etc., whereby in some embodiments, the battery has a relatively high energy density, such that the battery has a specific energy of greater than or equal to 250 Wh/kg, etc., and the battery has a volumetric density of greater than or equal to 230 Wh/L, which at least provides a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of the second volumetric energy density E2 satisfies: 450 Wh/L≤E2≤800 Wh/L, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Milobar further teaches in [0129] in some embodiments, the battery includes components configured such that the battery ( or portions of the battery) has a relatively low volume for a given size of electrochemical cells, compared to other configurations, whereby having a relatively low housing volume while having relatively large electrochemical active regions of cells may afford relatively large volumetric energy densities, and relatively large volumetric energy densities may be advantageous in certain applications where limited space for batteries is available, but where a large amount of stored energy may be desired, such as certain battery-powered vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts with the greater than or equal to 250 Wh/kg E2 range taught teachings of Milobar, whereby battery module including the first/second battery cell(s), etc., and second volumetric energy density E2 as disclosed by Tyler and Potts further includes the second volumetric energy density E2 as taught by Milobar such that having a relatively low housing volume while having relatively large electrochemical active regions of cells may afford relatively large volumetric energy densities, and relatively large volumetric energy densities may be advantageous in certain applications where limited space for batteries is available, but where a large amount of stored energy may be desired, such as certain battery-powered vehicles.
Regarding claim 12, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 10, wherein the second gravimetric energy density G2 is disclosed (see e.g. G2 value in Tyler as discussed above in claim 10 and Table 4).
In regards to the claim limitation “G2 satisfies: 220 Wh/kg≤E2≤400 Wh/kg,” since Tyler discloses in [0074] the volumetric energy density of a particular battery cell may be obtained using the volume and energy of the battery cell ref. 44, the energy of each battery cell ref. 44, as calculated herein, is the product of the nominal voltage and the capacity of the battery cell ref. 44, the volume is then divided into the calculated energy to obtain the volumetric energy density, and the gravimetric energy density may also be obtained by dividing the weight of the battery cell ref. 44 into the calculated energy of the cell ref. 44, etc., and further discloses in [0081] other volumes and shapes may fall within the scope of the present disclosure, etc., and Tyler further discloses in [0072] the battery cells ref. 44 may have a capacity that ranges between 8 Ah and 12 Ah, and the nominal voltages of the battery cells may be, for example, 3.9 V, 4.0 V, 4.1 V, 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that decreasing the volume and/or mass of said battery cell would yield a larger volumetric and/or gravimetric energy density, such that as an example provided by the examiner, when one having ordinary skill halves the 0.4 kg cell weight as shown in the examples and Table 1, etc., this provides 0.2 kg weight, such that when the capacity = 12 Ah and the voltage is 4.2, at least provides a gravimetric energy density of 252 Wh/kg, which is a value within the claimed range of the second gravimetric energy density G2 satisfies: 220 Wh/kg≤G2≤400 Wh/kg, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Because Tyler discloses the claimed range of the second gravimetric energy density G2 as discussed above, the claim limitation is met.
Tyler further discloses in [0076] it has been found that the dimensions of the battery cells ref. 44 set forth above, in combination with the cathode and anode electrode active material chemistries set forth above, may enable the battery modules ref. 28 to have certain dimensions conforming to certain desired standards while still providing a desired electrical output, etc.
Furthermore, Tyler provides an express motivation to change size/shape of said battery cells, whereby the skilled artisan would appreciate before the effective filing date that since Tyler further discloses in [0076] it has been found that the dimensions of the battery cells ref. 44 set forth above, in combination with the cathode and anode electrode active material chemistries set forth above, may enable the battery modules ref. 28 to have certain dimensions conforming to certain desired standards while still providing a desired electrical output, etc., that changes in size/shape of said battery cell(s) as disclosed by Tyler is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, IV., B.) so as to provide battery modules with certain dimensions conforming to certain desired standards while still providing a desired electrical output.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner additionally introduces Milobar to further teach the G2 range, whereby Milobar discloses in [0110] Fig. 1A shows optional housing ref. 102 at least partially enclosing first electrochemical cell ref. 110 and second electrochemical cell ref. 120, according to certain embodiments, etc., whereby in some embodiments, the battery has a relatively high energy density, such that the battery has a specific energy of greater than or equal to 250 Wh/kg, etc., and the battery has a volumetric density of greater than or equal to 230 Wh/L, which at least provides a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of the second gravimetric energy density G2 satisfies: 220 Wh/kg≤G2≤400 Wh/kg, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Milobar further teaches in [0129] in some embodiments, the battery includes components configured such that the battery (or portions of the battery) has a relatively low volume for a given size of electrochemical cells, compared to other configurations, whereby having a relatively low housing volume while having relatively large electrochemical active regions of cells may afford relatively large volumetric energy densities, and relatively large volumetric energy densities may be advantageous in certain applications where limited space for batteries is available, but where a large amount of stored energy may be desired, such as certain battery-powered vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts with the teachings of Milobar, whereby battery module including the first/second battery cell(s), etc., and second gravimetric energy density G2 as disclosed by Tyler further includes the second gravimetric energy density G2 as taught by Milobar such that having a relatively low housing volume while having relatively large electrochemical active regions of cells may afford relatively large volumetric energy densities, and relatively large volumetric energy densities may be advantageous in certain applications where limited space for batteries is available, but where a large amount of stored energy may be desired, such as certain battery-powered vehicles.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler and Potts as applied to claim 1, or in the alternative, and further in view of Bhardwaj et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2012/0015223 A1), hereinafter Bhardwaj.
Regarding claim 20, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Since Tyler discloses in [0078] as one example, the cell thickness CT may be between 13 mm and 15 mm, whereby associated tolerances may allow between 0.5% to 5% variation of CT, etc., (e.g., 15(1.05)/((13(0.95)) = 1.28), which is a value close to the claimed range of the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 satisfy: 1.5<T1/T2<20, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
In the alternative, Bhardwaj teaches battery pack with cells of different capacities (Title), whereby as taught in [0033] Fig. 2 shows a cross-sectional view of a battery pack in accordance with an embodiment, such that the battery pack includes three cells 202-206 of different thicknesses and/or sizes, whereby as shown in FIG. 2, cell ref. 202 is the thinnest, cell ref. 204 is of medium thickness, and cell ref. 206 is the thickest, and in addition, cells ref. 202-206 may be arranged in the battery pack based on an asymmetric design that allows the battery pack to fill up the free space within a portable electronic device, such that for example, cells ref. 202-206 may be positioned within the battery pack to take up a curved region of space inside a mobile phone, laptop computer, portable media player, digital camera, and/or PDA.
Since Bhardwaj teaches three cells 202-206 of different thicknesses and/or sizes, whereby as shown in FIG. 2, cell ref. 202 is the thinnest, cell ref. 204 is of medium thickness, and cell ref. 206 is the thickest, the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides as shown in Fig. 2 since cell ref. 202 is less than half the thickness of cell ref. 206 this at least provides a value of 2 or more, which is a range that is within and/or overlaps the claimed range of the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 satisfy: 1.5<T1/T2<20, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts with Bhardwaj, whereby the battery module including the first/second battery cells, etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts further includes a range that overlaps and/or is within the claimed range of the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 satisfy: 1.5<T1/T2<20 as taught by Bhardwaj so as to provide an asymmetric design that allows the battery pack to fill up the free space within a portable electronic device, such that for example, cells may be positioned within the battery pack to take up a curved region of space inside a mobile phone, laptop computer, portable media player, digital camera, and/or PDA, etc.
Regarding claim 21, Tyler discloses a battery module, comprising:
one or more first battery cells; and one or more second battery cells (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0054] whereby different types of the lithium ion battery module ref. 28 may utilize a particular type of prismatic battery cells, etc., as shown in Fig. 3, that is prismatic battery cells ref. 44, etc., and whereby as disclosed in [0072] battery modules ref. 28 may have any number of battery cells ref. 44, as shown in Fig. 3, such as six, twelve, or twenty of the battery cells ref. 44, etc., such that as disclosed in [0061] the cells ref. 44 in a particular column refs. 80, 82 (there are two such columns in the illustrated modules ref. 28), etc., and as disclosed in [0062] (also see also see [0032], [0035], [0039]-[0042], [0050], [0073], [0095]-[0096], [0100], Figs. 6-10, 12, 18) it is now recognized that a combination of the cell chemistry (e.g., NMC/LTO battery cells), cell shape, (e.g., prismatic), and cell size may facilitate production of the modules ref. 28, and may provide a desired energy density for the modules ref. 28, , such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said first/second battery cells is a designation and may be any of the battery cells as disclosed by Tyler, such as a first column ref. 80 and a second column ref. 82 as shown in at least Fig. 7 and also as shown in Fig. 3, which is at least an example that provides an equivalent number of battery cells in each column, and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Furthermore, Tyler further discloses in [0102] Fig. 10 is an example of the difference in cell configuration between a first battery cell ref. 44A that exhibits swelling during operations (e.g., an NMC/graphite cell) and a second battery ref. 44B that exhibits little to no swelling during operation (e.g., an NMC/LTO cell), etc. (also see [0103]-[0104], [0129], Fig. 17, [0135], Fig. 18), which at least provides one or more first battery cells and one or more second battery cells, and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Since Tyler discloses the battery cells as discussed above, such that a first and second battery cell(s) may be any first and second battery cells, and further discloses a first column ref. 80 and a second column ref. 82 as shown in at least Figs. 3 and 7, and/or a first prismatic battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic battery cell ref. 44B, etc., as discussed above, these are at least examples that provides an equivalent number of battery cells in each column and/or an equivalent first/second battery cell, such that this at least provides a value of a that is at least greater than and/or equal to b, which is within the claimed range of a first number a of the one or more first battery cells is greater than or equal to a second number b of the one or more second battery cells, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.)
Tyler further discloses in [0070] dimensions, shapes, and chemistries of the battery cells ref. 44 may be designed to achieve a desired form factor, volume, and output, etc., whereby dimensions of the prismatic battery cell ref. 44, as shown in Fig. 6, include a cell length (CL) along the sides ref. 72, 74, a cell width (CW) along the terminal and base portions ref. 62, 70, and a cell thickness (CT) extending between the first and second faces refs. 76, 78, etc. Tyler further discloses in [0071] based on the dimensions set forth above for the battery cells ref. 44, the voltage of the battery modules ref. 28, and the number of battery cells ref. 44 used in the modules ref. 28, an energy density (e.g., average) of the battery cells ref. 44 may be determined, such that the energy density determined from the dimensions set forth above may be volume-based (e.g., a volumetric energy density), as well as example weights of the battery cells ref. 44 are also provided herein to describe the energy density based on their mass (e.g., a gravimetric energy density). (also see [0008]-[0009], [0074], [0077]-[0078], [0080]-[0081])
Tyler further discloses in [0075] using the dimensions set forth above for the battery cell ref. 44 (where CL is 140 mm, CT is 14 mm, and CW is 112 mm, a volume of 0.22 L), a capacity range of between 8 Ah and 12 Ah, and nominal voltage ranging from 2.0V to 4.2 V, the volumetric energy density of the battery cells ref. 44 may range between 73 Watt hours per Liter (Wh/L) and 230 Wh/L, depending on the nominal voltage and capacity of the cells ref. 44. (also see more specific examples of the volumetric energy density of the battery cells ref. 44 in Tables 1-4).
Tyler further discloses in [0055] the arrangement of the battery cells ref. 44 within the housings ref. 40, as well as their respective sizes, as described in further detail below, are the primary factors that control a respective height H1 (shown in Fig. 4) of the lithium ion battery module ref. 28A and a respective height H2 (shown in Fig. 4) of the lithium ion battery module ref. 28B, the third lithium ion battery module ref. 28C has a significantly larger height H3 (shown in Fig. 4) compared to the first and second lithium ion battery modules ref. 28A, 28B, whereby this is due, at least in part, to the additional number of battery cells ref. 44 required for the lithium ion battery module ref. 28 to reach a higher voltage (e.g., 48V using a third number, such as 20, of the same type of battery cells connected in series).
Since Tyler discloses in [0135] the plurality of battery cells ref. 44 may include a first prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44A, a second prismatic NMC/LTO battery cell ref. 44B, etc., and Tyler further discloses in Table 1, etc., a volumetric energy density (Wh/L) of 230 for a prismatic battery cell with dimensions 140 mm × 112 mm × 14 mm with a cell capacity of 12 Ah at 4.2 V, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides a first battery cell and a second battery cell that may have, for example, identical and/or substantially identical volumetric energy densities (i.e., 230 Wh/L) and identical and/or substantially identical cell thicknesses (CT) of 14 mm, and which at least provides a first product X1 of a first volumetric energy density E1 and a first thickness T1 of each of the one or more battery cells (i.e., 230 Wh/L × 14 mm) and a second product X2 of a second volumetric energy density E2 and a second thickness T2 of each of the one or more battery cells (i.e., 230 Wh/L × 14 mm), such that X1/X2 = 1, which is a value within the claimed range of a first product X1 of a first volumetric energy density E1 and a first thickness T1 of each of the one or more first battery cells and a second product X2 of a second volumetric energy density E2 and a second thickness T2 of each of the one or more second battery cells satisfy: 0.35≤X1/X2≤18, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Tyler further discloses in [0090] the present disclosure is not limited to these materials, and the battery cells ref. 44 may use any one or a combination of positive electrode active materials and negative electrode active materials, etc.
Since Tyler discloses in [0078] as one example, the cell thickness CT may be between 13 mm and 15 mm, whereby associated tolerances may allow between 0.5% to 5% variation of CT, etc., (e.g., 15(1.05)/((13(0.95)) = 1.28), which is a value close to the claimed range of the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 satisfy: 1.5<T1/T2<20, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) such that the dimensions, shapes, and chemistries of the battery cells may be designed to achieve a desired form factor, volume, and output, etc.
In the alternative, Bhardwaj teaches battery pack with cells of different capacities (Title), whereby as taught in [0033] Fig. 2 shows a cross-sectional view of a battery pack in accordance with an embodiment, such that the battery pack includes three cells 202-206 of different thicknesses and/or sizes, whereby as shown in FIG. 2, cell ref. 202 is the thinnest, cell ref. 204 is of medium thickness, and cell ref. 206 is the thickest, and in addition, cells ref. 202-206 may be arranged in the battery pack based on an asymmetric design that allows the battery pack to fill up the free space within a portable electronic device, such that for example, cells ref. 202-206 may be positioned within the battery pack to take up a curved region of space inside a mobile phone, laptop computer, portable media player, digital camera, and/or PDA.
Since Bhardwaj teaches three cells 202-206 of different thicknesses and/or sizes, whereby as shown in FIG. 2, cell ref. 202 is the thinnest, cell ref. 204 is of medium thickness, and cell ref. 206 is the thickest, the skilled artisan would appreciate that this at least provides as shown in Fig. 2 since cell ref. 202 is less than half the thickness of cell ref. 206 this at least provides a value of 2 or more, which is a range that is within and/or overlaps the claimed range of the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 satisfy: 1.5<T1/T2<20, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts with Bhardwaj, whereby the battery module including the first/second battery cells, etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts further includes a range that overlaps and/or is within the claimed range of the first thickness T1 and the second thickness T2 satisfy: 1.5<T1/T2<20 as taught by Bhardwaj so as to provide an asymmetric design that allows the battery pack to fill up the free space within a portable electronic device, such that for example, cells may be positioned within the battery pack to take up a curved region of space inside a mobile phone, laptop computer, portable media player, digital camera, and/or PDA, etc.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide an asymmetric design that allows the battery pack to fill up the free space within a portable electronic device, such that for example, cells may be positioned within the battery pack to take up a curved region of space inside a mobile phone, laptop computer, portable media player, digital camera, and/or PDA, etc.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler and Potts as applied to claim 1 above, or in the alternative, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2021/0184267 A1), hereinafter Tanaka.
Regarding claim 18, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery module as discussed above in claim 1. Tyler further discloses in [0045] the battery system ref. 12 includes an energy storage component ref. 14, etc., whereby as disclosed in [0049] the energy storage component ref. 14 may include multiple battery modules, etc., (also see [0047]-[0051], Fig. 2), which at least provides a battery pack, comprising the battery module according to claim 1, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that an energy storage component comprising one or more battery modules at least provides a battery pack, lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said battery pack.
Furthermore, since Tyler discloses the battery module as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claim 1 and the instant claim is the preamble reciting a battery pack comprising said battery module, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
In the alternative, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner introduces Tanaka which teaches a battery and battery pack (Title). Tanaka further teaches in [0125] the plural batteries may be electrically connected in series, in parallel or in combination of in-series and in-parallel connections to configure a battery module, whereby the battery pack may include plural battery modules, which at last provides a battery pack comprising a battery module. Tanaka further teaches in [0136] the form of the battery pack can be appropriately changed depending on applications, whereby as the application of the battery pack, one for which good cycle performance during a large current performance is preferable, such that more specifically, examples of the applications include power source for a digital camera and onboard applications for a two-wheeled or four-wheeled hybrid electric vehicle, a two-wheeled or four-wheeled electric vehicle, or a power-assisted bicycle. Tanaka further teaches in [0138] the battery pack according to the second embodiment described above in detail includes the battery according to the first embodiment, and therefore, the battery pack according to the second embodiment can attain excellent life performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts with the teachings of Tanaka, whereby battery module including the first/second battery cell(s), etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts further includes the battery pack comprising a battery module as taught by Tanaka so that the form of the battery pack can be appropriately changed depending on applications, whereby as the application of the battery pack, one for which good cycle performance during a large current performance is preferable, such that more specifically, examples of the applications include power source for a digital camera and onboard applications for a two-wheeled or four-wheeled hybrid electric vehicle, a two-wheeled or four-wheeled electric vehicle, or a power-assisted bicycle, etc., so as to attain excellent life performance.
Regarding claim 19, Tyler and Potts discloses the battery pack as discussed above in claim 18. Tyler further discloses in [0031] the battery system(s) described herein may be used to provide power to various types of electric vehicles (xEVs) and other high voltage energy storage/expending applications, etc., which at least provides an electrical apparatus (also see [0004], [0043]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, ref. 10), comprising the battery pack according to claim 18, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that electric vehicles (xEVs) and/or other high voltage energy storage/expending applications are at least electrochemical apparatus(s so to house said battery system, energy storage component, module(s), etc.), lacking any further structural distinction thereof as to said electrochemical apparatus.
Furthermore, since Tyler discloses the battery pack, battery module, etc., as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claim 18 and the instant claim is the preamble reciting an electrical apparatus comprising the battery pack comprising said battery module, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate that since Tyler discloses the battery module comprising one or more first battery cells; one or more second battery cells, etc., and Potts further teaches each of the one or more first battery cells comprises a sodium-ion battery, and each of the one or more second battery cells comprises a lithium-ion battery that simply substituting one known battery for another is a matter of obvious engineering design choice so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
Furthermore, as discussed above in claim 1, the skilled artisan would appreciate changes to size and shape of said battery cells is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (MPEP 2144.04, A., B.) so as to provide the desired amount of voltage and power for that particular power unit, etc.
In the alternative, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner further introduces Tanaka that teaches a battery and battery pack (Title). Tanaka further teaches in [0125] the plural batteries may be electrically connected in series, in parallel or in combination of in-series and in-parallel connections to configure a battery module, whereby the battery pack may include plural battery modules. Tanaka further teaches in [0136] the form of the battery pack can be appropriately changed depending on applications, whereby as the application of the battery pack, one for which good cycle performance during a large current performance is preferable, such that more specifically, examples of the applications include power source for a digital camera and onboard applications for a two-wheeled or four-wheeled hybrid electric vehicle, a two-wheeled or four-wheeled electric vehicle, or a power-assisted bicycle, etc., which at least provides an electrical apparatus comprising a battery pack. Tanaka further teaches in [0138] the battery pack according to the second embodiment described above in detail includes the battery according to the first embodiment, and therefore, the battery pack according to the second embodiment can attain excellent life performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Tyler and Potts with the teachings of Tanaka, whereby battery module including the first/second battery cell(s), etc., as disclosed by Tyler further includes the electrical apparatus comprising the battery pack comprising a battery module as taught by Tanaka so that the form of the battery pack can be appropriately changed depending on applications, whereby as the application of the battery pack, one for which good cycle performance during a large current performance is preferable, such that more specifically, examples of the applications include power source for a digital camera and onboard applications for a two-wheeled or four-wheeled hybrid electric vehicle, a two-wheeled or four-wheeled electric vehicle, or a power-assisted bicycle, etc., so as to attain excellent life performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Tyler have been considered but are moot 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nikkhoo et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0140306 A1) discloses a variable layer thickness in curved battery cell (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0027] the thickness of each cell ref. 402 may be determined by the curvature of that cell, and both the thickness and curvature of the cells may increase as battery ref. 400 is traversed radially inward. For example, the thickness of cell ref. 402D, which is farther radially inward than cell ref. 402C, may be greater than the thickness of cell ref. 402C.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on (571) 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights