DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 Analysis – Applicant as his/her own Lexicographer
2. As previously noted, an applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2111.01, Section IV.
The Applicant has provided their own definitions to the following phrases:
“substantially parallel,” “substantially planar,” and “substantially perpendicular” or “substantially right”
Accordingly, these explicit definitions will control the interpretations of these phrases, respectively, as the phrase is used in the claim.
Claim Objections
3. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the correction filed (Applicant incorporated most of the Examiner-proposed corrections).
4. Claim 1 is objected for the following issue. Claim 1, fourth line from the bottom should read as follows;
“terminal to the first and second adjacent positive cell terminals, and…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The rejection of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 3-11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of the correction filed.
The rejection of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 3-11, 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 is withdrawn in view of the correction filed.
6. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 3-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as amended recites:
“the cell frame comprising at least one geometric feature having a recess having a shape corresponding to the positive cell terminal and the negative cell terminal of the first pouch cell.”
This violates the written description requirement given the original language and construct shown in the figures is that of (P57, 71, 75, 96 of the PGPUB; Figs. 1a-1c):
“the cell frame comprising at least one geometric feature having a recess having a shape corresponding to the corresponding one of the positive cell terminal and the negative cell terminal of the first pouch cell.”
The new language allows for a singular recess to have a shape that corresponding to both positive and negative terminals which is not supported in the instant application by the written description or the figures. Instead, the disclosure illustrates and shows two receives configured to receive a respective cell terminal 12i, 12ii (P75).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0226043) in view of Bachmann et al. (DE 10 2013 021549) (machine translation previously provided) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments provided.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a cell sub-module 100 comprising at least a first cell assembly and two adjacent cell assemblies (Fig. 4-8; P58-60);
the two adjacent cell assemblies (Figs. 5-6, 8) comprising:
a first adjacent cell assembly comprising a first adjacent pouch cell 110a (P19-22, 57-63; see also Figs. 1-2; note that alternatively, 210a in Fig. 7 or 310a in Fig. 8 reads on “a first adjacent pouch cell” with any embodiment relied upon), the first adjacent pouch cell 110a comprising a first adjacent positive cell terminal 112a and a first adjacent negative cell terminal 113 (P59; Figs. 1-8);
a second adjacent cell assembly comprising a second adjacent pouch cell 110c (P19-22; see also 5-6 and Figs. 1-2), the second adjacent pouch cell comprising a second adjacent positive cell terminal 112c and a second adjacent negative cell terminal 113 (P59; Figs. 1-8); and
the first cell assembly comprising:
a first pouch cell 110b comprising a positive cell terminal 112b and a negative cell terminal 113 (P19-22, 57-63; Fig. 4; see also Figs. 1-2), the positive 112b and negative 113 cell terminals being arranged at a top side of the first pouch cell (Figs. 1-8); and
a cell cartridge 130 (“cell frame”) (P58) having a top wall (illustrated in Fig. 4), and
wherein the positive cell terminal 112b forming a positive cell terminal stack including the positive cell terminal 112b welded to the first and second adjacent positive cell terminals 112a, 112c (P62 teaches that the overlapping portions are welded to each other), the negative cell terminal 113 forming a negative cell terminal stack including the negative cell terminal welded to the first and second adjacent negative cell terminals 113 (P62; Fig. 4), the welded negative cell terminal stack and the welded positive cell terminal stack each being bent to form damping structure 315 which may have any shape including a semicircular shape, a triangular shape, or a quadrangular shape (P70-72) (i.e., “bent at an angle”) with respect to the top wall of the cell cartridge 130 (“cell frame”) (Figs. 4, 8).
The claim recites that each cell terminal stack is bent at a substantially right angle with respect to the top wall of the cell cartridge 130 (“cell frame”), wherein Applicant defines a “substantially right” angle to be an angle of 80 °C to 110°C (P51) which is used to interpret the meaning of the claim. The specific angle that the selected shape (taught as being of various shapes – P72) of the damping structure 315 is not taught in the Fig. 8 embodiment; however, it includes a quadrangular shape [a genus of shapes that includes rectangles and squares (having right-sided angles), and other four-sided shapes with varying angles] as well as triangular shapes [a genus of shapes that includes both right-angle and non-right angle options]. Furthermore, the prior embodiment includes optimized angles of bending that form a damping structure (Fig. 7), wherein the optimized angle helps to more effectively function as a damper for absorbing or buffing external force or vibration to prevent damage (P66-69).
Therefore, it is considered an obvious expedient to determine an appropriate shape of the damping structure 315 of Fig. 8, and angle that it forms relative to the bending direction (i.e., the horizontal or top wall of the cell cartridge 130 (“cell frame”)] (Figs. 4, 8) in order to optimize its purpose of achieving a damping structure that absorbs of buffers external force or vibration to prevent damage (P66-69). Accordingly, absent objective evidence that the bending angle of “substantially right” creates a new or unexpected result, the feature is considered routine experimentation in view of the following case law:
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05.
A change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent.” Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874).
“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
The feature is additionally considered “Obvious to Try” – Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. At the effective filing date of the invention, there is a design need in terms of what types of shape(s), and thus angle(s) made, relative to the bending direction (i.e., the horizontal or top wall of the cell cartridge 130 (“cell frame”)], there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need taught by Lee including a semi-circular shape, a quadrangular shape [a genus of shapes that includes rectangles and squares (having right-sided angles), and other four-sided shapes with varying angles], and a triangular shape [a genus of shapes that includes both right-angle and non-right angle options], wherein one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the specific shape and angle made relative to the bending direction (i.e., the horizontal or top wall of the cell cartridge 130 (“cell frame”) – Figs. 4 and 8) is considered obvious to try based on the findings above, wherein the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, the language is considered product-by-process language which is evaluated for its implicit or explicit structure provided to the product. For example, if the adjacent positive and negative terminals are formed so as to be pre-bent versus straight and then subsequently bent, the structure is the same (i.e., a bending step is not required so long as there is a bent portion in the final product). Accordingly, so long as all of the first and second adjacent positive cell terminals and first and second adjacent negative cell terminals as defined each are bent at substantially right angles, the structure implicit to the product-by-process language will be met. Furthermore, whether the bending occurs prior to welding, at the same time welding, or after welding lends no further implicit structure to the claim such that the time of welding does not add any additional structure to the product claim. Regarding product-by-process limitations, see MPEP 2113.
Lee teaches:
the positive cell terminal stack (112a, 112b, 112c) is provided such that the first adjacent positive cell terminal 112a includes a bent portion 114a at a substantially right angle toward the positive terminal cell terminal 112b; the second adjacent positive cell terminal 112c includes a bent portion 114c formed at a substantially right angle toward the positive cell terminal 112b (P58-69; Figs. 4-8; not limited to entire disclosure including the claims);
the negative cell terminal stack 113 includes the same (P58-69; Figs. 4-8; not limited to entire disclosure including the claims).
Accordingly, all of the structure of the product-by-process limitation is met by Lee. It is noted that Applicant defines a “substantially right” angle to be an angle of 80 °C to 110°C (P51) which is used to interpret the meaning of the claim. Figures 4-5 of Lee illustrate an angle that appears to be within or close to this range, wherein drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, Lee in another embodiment (Fig. 7) teaches that the analogous bent portions 214a, 214c have a bent angle θ1 of more than 90 degrees (P27, 67). Thus, the claimed range (i.e., “substantially right” being defined as a range of 80-110 °C – P51) overlaps with the taught range of Lee of “more than 90 degrees” (P67), thereby establishing a prima facia case of obviousness with respect to the feature of the angles being “substantially right” which is equivalent to 80- 100 °C.
Furthermore regarding claim 1, Lee fails to explicitly disclose the cell frame 130 having a top wall (illustrated in Fig. 4) also has:
a bottom wall opposite the top wall, the bottom wall having a first side which is directly adjacent the first pouch cell and a second side which is opposite the first side;
a thermal plate extending through the bottom wall of the cell frame, bent at an approximate right angle such as to form a bottom portion that is substantially parallel to and covering the bottom wall of the cell frame, and
wherein the cell frame comprises at least one geometric feature having a recess having a shape corresponding to the corresponding one of the positive cell terminal and the negative cell terminal.
It is noted that Fig. 4 of Lee does not illustrate the opposite/bottom end of the cell cartridge 130 (“cell frame”). Lee does teach that the cartridges are stacked in a vertical direction while being adjacent to one another and function as sheathing members to fix the battery cells 110a, 110b, 110c to form a battery cell stack (P58), but it silent as to what the end structure of the cartridge 130 looks like, or the teaching of a thermal plate as claimed.
Looking to known cell cartridge/frame constructs, Bachmann teaches analogous art of a cell block (“cell sub-module”) having a plurality of stacked cell modules 2 (“cell assemblies”) (Figs. 1-2, 5), wherein, “The individual cell modules each include one or more parts, which are selected from the list below depending on the design and requirements.
-single battery cell,
-cell holder,
-heat conducting element for thermal coupling of the individual battery cell to a temperature control device of the high-voltage battery or the cell block,
-spring element acting flatly on the individual battery cell, and/or
-devices for electrical interconnection of the battery poles of the cells.
The illustrated construct of the cell holder 5 (“cell frame”) of Bachmann includes a top wall and a bottom wall opposite the top wall, the bottom wall having a first side which is directly adjacent to battery cell 6 and a second side which is opposite the first side (Figs. 2, 4);
a cooling plate 8 (“thermal plate”) extending through the bottom wall of the cell holder 5 (“frame”), bent at an approximate right angle so as to form a bottom portion that is substantially parallel to and covering the bottom wall of the cell holder 5 (“frame”) (see Figs. 4 & 6; P30),
wherein the cell holder 5 (“frame”) comprises at least one geometric feature (circled below) having a recess having a shape corresponding to [the corresponding one of] the positive cell terminal 7 and the negative cell terminal 7 (Figs. 1-2, 5, 7-8):
PNG
media_image1.png
416
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that given the positive and negative terminals 7 have the same shape, the limitation of “a recess having a shape corresponding to the positive terminal and the negative terminal” is also met given the shape of the recess matches/corresponds to both terminals having the same shape.
Bachman teaches that cell holders 5 (“frames”) achieve the desired mechanical fixation of the individual battery cells to form a cell block (P6), and the cooling plate 8 (“thermal plate”) construct allows for easy contact with a cooling plate such that heat can be removed from the cell block 1 (P30; entire disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known cell cartridge/frame constructs for the cartridge/frame 130 of Lee given the full construct of the cartridge 130 is not illustrated/ discussed, and to implement features of the cell holder (“frame”) 5 of Bachman to the cartridge/frame 130 of Lee in order to achieve the predictable results of safely securing the taught sensitive pouch cells on all sides within a protective structure that allows the terminals 7 protection while extending outward (i.e., the cell cartridge/frame including walls all around including a bottom wall with a means (recess feature) by which the terminals are protected and may extend outward), and to achieve the advantageous cooling effect in which heat can be removed from the cell block 1 by way of the cooling plate 8 (“thermal plate”) having the construct claimed (entire disclosure relied upon; see Fig. 4; P30).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee fails to teaches the cell sub-module further comprising a compression element, the cell frame being configured to receive and house the first pouch cell 110b and the compression element in a space defined by the cooling plate 8 (“thermal plate”) and the cell frame; however, Bachmann teaches that the cell block (“cell sub-module”) may further comprise a spring element 9 in the form of an elastic clamping mat (i.e., “a compression element”), with the cell holder 5 (“cell frame”) configured to receive and house the first pouch cell 6 and the spring element 9 in a space defined by the cooling plate 8 and the cell frame 5 (see Fig. 2; P32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the modified cell cartridge 130 (“cell frame”) of Lee with the spring element 9 and construct claimed given it is a known configuration as taught by Bachmann, the use thereof providing the predictable, taught result of compression of the adjacent cell module in the cell block with electrical functionality fully achieved (P17).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein the first cell assembly is sandwiched by the first and second adjacent cell assemblies (Figs. 3-5, 8).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein each of the first pouch cell and the first and second adjacent pouch cells is a lithium-ion pouch cell (P41; claim 19).
8. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0226043) in view of Bachmann et al. (DE 10 2013 021549) as applied to at least claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Kruger et al. (WO 2016/131141) (published 8/25/2016) (using family member US 2018/0026296 as an English language copy thereof with citations thereto) is maintained.
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified by Bachmann teaches the spring element (“compression element”) in the form of an elastic clamping mat (see Fig. 2; P32), but fails to specifically teach it comprises at least one foam layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Kruger teaches analogous art of a cell sub-module 150 comprising a plurality of cell frames 103 and pouch cells, each cell frame comprising a thermal plate 102 integrated into the cell frame 103 (Figs. 1-2; P39, 50-51), each cell frame 103 being configured to receive and house a corresponding pouch cell 1110 and the compression element 120 in a space defined by the thermal plate 102 and the cell frame 103 ((P38-53; Figs. 1-3A), wherein the wherein the compression element is specifically a compression foam sheet 120 (P40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to analogous constructs and select a known type of material for the spring element (“compression element”) in the form of an elastic clamping mat of Lee as modified by Bachmann, and to select a compression foam sheet 120 as taught by Kruger (P40). It is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); MPEP § 2144.07.
9. The rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0226043) in view of Bachmann et al. (DE 10 2013 021549) as applied to at least claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Kruger et al. (WO 2016/131141) (published 8/25/2016) (using family member US 2018/0026296 as an English language copy thereof with citations thereto) as applied to at least claim 4 above, and further in view of Odumodu (US 2012/0040223) is maintained.
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified by Bachmann teaches wherein the bottom portion of the cooling plate 8 (“thermal plate”) is configured to contact a thermal management feature (taught at P30). Lee as modified by Bachmann fails to disclose wherein a top portion of the thermal plate is accessible through an aperture in the top wall of the cell frame as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Odumodu teaches analogous art of an integrated cooling fin/plate 65 (“thermal plate”) and frame 25 that holds a pouch battery cell 70, wherein the analogous cell frame 25 is provided at a top portion of the thermal plate (i.e., where at least one terminal exists) with an aperture 95 in the top wall such that the analogous cooling fin/plate 65 (“thermal plate”) is accessible through said aperture 95 in the top wall of the cell frame 25, the aperture allowing for the use of sensors and a battery management system (P44-45; at least Figs. 10,11; alternative embodiments also relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the cell frame of Lee as modified by Bachman such that a top portion of the cooling plate 8 (“thermal plate”) is accessible through an aperture in the top wall of the cell frame 2 given the technique and construct are taught by Odumodu, the configuration providing the predictable result of allowing for sensors and monitoring of the cell system if desired (P44-45; at least Figs. 10,11; alternative embodiments also relied upon).
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites, “…wherein the thermal plate is in-molded in the cell frame” which is entirely product-by-process language, wherein the court has held:
“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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product aside from the thermal plate is at least partially within the cell frame (i.e., inside the frame itself or the inner space of the frame). As such, the thermal plate of Lee as modified by Bachmann meets the structure set forth by the product-by-process language given the thermal plate 8 is within the cell frame 2. Note that Bachmann also explicitly teaches the product-by-process limitation (P34: a plastic overmoulding is applied around the cooling plate 8 which forms the cell holder).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, “wherein the first pouch cell is secured to the thermal plate by one of a supported layer and a non-supported adhesive layer, which is at least partially applied on the thermal plate.” The italicized language is product-by-process language, and is evaluated for its implicit or explicit structural requirements which appear to be that the adhesive layer is on the thermal plate [i.e., it could be applied to the battery which is then collectively applied to the thermal plate with the adhesive thereon and the claim would still be met in terms of the adhesive layer is on the thermal plate].
Lee as modified by Bachmann teaches that the battery cell 6 is glued to cooling plate 8 (P30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to implement this known technique when utilizing the cooling plate 8 of Bachman in order to achieve the predictable results of securing the pouch cell to the cooling plate 8 and promoting thermal transfer therebetween.
10. The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0226043) in view of Bachmann et al. (DE 10 2013 021549) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (WO 2014/084474) (copy previously provided) is maintained.
Regarding claim 8, Lee fails to teach wherein the cell sub-module 100 further comprising a sense line for measuring a voltage of the cell sub-module. In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches analogous art of a battery pack 2000 (Fig. 6) including battery/unit modules 1000 (i.e., “cell sub-modules”) (Figs. 2-5b), each battery/unit module 1000 including pouch battery cells with their terminals electrically interconnected, wherein the battery/unit module (“cell sub-modules”) are provided with a voltage sensing line for measuring a voltage thereof (P16-23, 61, 64, 82; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the cell sub-module 100 of Lee to further comprise a sense line for measuring a voltage of the cell sub-module given the construct and technique are known in the art as taught by Kim, thereby providing the predictable result of being able to monitor the voltage of the cell sub-module for safety, proper use, etc.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior Office Action prior rejections have been fully considered. With respect to the maintained prior art rejection, Applicant argues that Lee and Bachmann fail to disclose the features of claim 1 as amended and bolds the feature incorporated into claim 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
128
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s analysis of Lee failing to teach the feature; however, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Bachmann does not teach the feature. Bachmann teaches the cell holder 5 (“frame”) comprises at least one geometric feature (circled below) having a recess having a shape corresponding to [the corresponding one of] the positive cell terminal 7 and the negative cell terminal 7 (Figs. 1-2, 5, 7-8):
PNG
media_image1.png
416
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that given the positive and negative terminals 7 have the same shape, the limitation of “a recess having a shape corresponding to the positive terminal and the negative terminal” is also met given the shape of the recess matches/corresponds to both terminals having the same shape.
Thus, the Examiner reasons in the updated rejection above:
Bachman teaches that cell holders 5 (“frames”) achieve the desired mechanical fixation of the individual battery cells to form a cell block (P6), and the cooling plate 8 (“thermal plate”) construct allows for easy contact with a cooling plate such that heat can be removed from the cell block 1 (P30; entire disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known cell cartridge/frame constructs for the cartridge/frame 130 of Lee given the full construct of the cartridge 130 is not illustrated/ discussed, and to implement features of the cell holder (“frame”) 5 of Bachman to the cartridge/frame 130 of Lee in order to achieve the predictable results of safely securing the taught sensitive pouch cells on all sides within a protective structure that allows the terminals 7 protection while extending outward (i.e., the cell cartridge/frame including walls all around including a bottom wall with a means (recess feature) by which the terminals are protected and may extend outward), and to achieve the advantageous cooling effect in which heat can be removed from the cell block 1 by way of the cooling plate 8 (“thermal plate”) having the construct claimed (entire disclosure relied upon; see Fig. 4; P30).
Accordingly, the argument is respectfully not considered persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In the interest of compact prosecution and attempting to address any potential future arguments as to the combination of Lee and Bachmann relevant to the terminals and recess feature(s), it is noted that while the terminals of Bachmann extend out opposite sides of the pouch versus the same side, this is considered an obvious matter of design choice. This is taught in the applied reference to Odumodu (US 2012/0040223) (P31; Figs. 4B, 4C) with terminals 660, 665 being taught as extending out opposite sides from one another, or on the same side:
PNG
media_image3.png
214
337
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also Yun et al. (US 2015/0072216) teaching the same (P28, 30, 44-45; Figs. 1-2) as a matter of design choice:
PNG
media_image4.png
418
266
media_image4.png
Greyscale
See also Silk et al. (US 2014/0272494) (P27) teaching the same.
It is noted that the modification of the rejection of record if not one of altering the original terminal construct of Lee; the proposed combination is one of implementing/applying the features taught by Bachmann for the cell holder 5 (“frame”) to the cell cartridge 130 (“frame”) of Lee. In this regard, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the taught recess feature to both terminals of Lee extending out the same side such that each terminal has a corresponding recess feature that matches it such that each terminal can extend outward from the cartridge 130 while the pouch cell is protected on all sides.
It is noted that this specific construct (positive and negative terminals on the same side of the pouch with corresponding geometric features having a recess matching the corresponding terminal) is taught by Kwon et al. (US 2018/0034121):
PNG
media_image5.png
525
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
as well as Kwak et al. (US 2013/0164585):
PNG
media_image6.png
624
630
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
12. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Prior Art References pertaining to welding adjacent terminals of pouch cells:
Kim et al (US 2014/0120406):
PNG
media_image7.png
215
382
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See also: Lee et al. (US 2013/0330595) (Fig. 2); Scheuerman et al. (US 7,896,219); and Lev et al. (US 2012/0315531).
Prior Art References pertaining to pouch cells held within frames/cartridges:
Kim et al. (US 2016/0248135); Choi (US 2017/0294634) and Bachmann et al. (DE 10 2013 021549) (machine translation in parent application and mailed with Non-Final Office Acton dated 11/3/2022).
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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 J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729