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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-16 (i.e. Group I) in the reply filed on 06/26/26 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the unelected claims can be examined without posing an undue burden.” This is not found persuasive because s initially described in the 05/06/26 Restriction Requirement, the inventions (i.e. Groups I and II) are related as product and process of use, and it was made clear that in the instant case, the battery system of Group I can be used in a materially different process of using the battery system, (i.e. a materially different method than that of Group II). Aside from merely asserting that an undue search burden does not exist, Applicant has not provided any specific evidence and/or arguments to prove or support that said undue burden does not exist, let alone prove or support that the battery system of Group I cannot be used in a materially different method than that of Group II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of clarity (and based on substantially the same language found in Claim 12), the phrase “rib configured to deform” should be written as “the rib configured to deform.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2013/0122340).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches a battery pack (“battery system”) (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 3-4 (and the annotated Figure 3 below), Wu teaches that the battery pack comprises a first battery module (202) comprising a frame (22) (“first cell carrier”), wherein said frame comprises a “first datum,” wherein said first datum is configured to both align with a “second datum” of a heat dissipation element (30) (“thermal component”) and “at least “partially receive a screw (50) (“locating feature”) of a second battery module (201) comprising a frame (22) (“second cell carrier”) ([0027]-[0034]).
It is noted that the first datum is interpreted to “at least partially receive” said screw insofar as because at least a portion of the first datum receives said screw therein. The instant Claim does not explicitly require that the claimed locating feature is an integral, structural feature/component of the claimed second cell carrier. Furthermore, the screw is interpreted as being a locating feature “of” the frame of the second battery module because, as illustrated in Figures 3-4 (and the annotated Figure 3 below), the screw not only locates the frame of the second battery module, but also extends from said frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
805
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Wu teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 1), the first datum comprises a circular through-hole which restricts the frame to two degrees of freedom of movement (“2-way datum to restrict the first cell carrier to two degrees of freedom”).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 1), the first datum and the second datum each comprises a circular through-hole (“the first datum and the second datum each comprising a same type of datum”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2013/0122340), and further in view of Sengoku et al. (US 2016/0035497).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 1), the screw is structured so as to comprise a vertical post (“post”) having threads formed on an outer surface thereof (each thread is interpreted as a “cutout” of the vertical post).
Wu does not explicitly teach that at least a portion of a thread is configured to receive an adhesive.
However, Sengoku teaches an electrical storage module (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 6, Sengoku teaches that the module comprises a hole which receives a set screw (80), wherein the set screw comprises a vertical shaft portion (802) that engages with the inner surface of the hole ([0033]). Sengoku teaches that in order to help prevent the set screw from coming loose, an adhesive is applied at least to the external threaded portions that are formed on the outer surface of the vertical shaft portion ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would configure Wu’s screw threads to receive an adhesive (“configured to receive an adhesive”), as taught by Sengoku, to help prevent the screw from coming loose.
Regarding Claim 3, Wu teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 1), the screw is structured so as to comprise a vertical post having threads formed on an outer surface thereof (each thread is interpreted as a “tapered portion”).
Wu does not explicitly teach that at least one thread provides an adhesive flow path.
However, Sengoku teaches an electrical storage module (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 6, Sengoku teaches that the module comprises a hole which receives a set screw (80), wherein the set screw comprises a vertical shaft portion (802) that engages with the inner surface of the hole ([0033]). Sengoku teaches that in order to help prevent the set screw from coming loose, an adhesive is applied at least to the external threaded portions that are formed on the outer surface of the vertical shaft portion ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would configure Wu’s screw threads to receive a flow of adhesive thereon (“adhesive flow path”), as taught by Sengoku, given that such an adhesive would help the screw from coming loose.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2013/0122340), and further in view of Okada et al. (US 2010/0167115).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wu does not explicitly teach that the frame of the second battery module comprises a rib as instantly claimed which is configured to deform as instantly claimed.
However, Okada teaches a battery system (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 7, Okada teaches that the system comprises insulating separators (15) positioned between adjacent battery cells (1) ([0038]). While not illustrated, Okada teaches that the insulating walls may be constructed with ribs protruding beyond a surface thereof, wherein the ribs are configured to deform in response to physical contact to help absorb dimensional differences between surfaces ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the frame of the second battery module of Wu with deformable ribs, as taught by Okada, that protrude beyond a surface thereof, given that such ribs would be operable to deform in response to physical contact with the frame of the first battery module to thereby help absorb dimensional differences of the surfaces of the battery modules that face one another upon construction of the battery pack.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2013/0122340), and further in view of Oide et al. (WO 2022230469, using the equivalent US 2024/0194998 for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 1), the second datum comprises a circular through-hole.
Wu does not explicitly teach that the second datum comprises a 4-way datum to restrict the frame to four degrees of freedom of movement.
However, Oide teaches a power storage device (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 5, 7, Oide teaches that the device comprises a protruding portion (30) which is fit into a hole portion (40), wherein the hole portion is an elongated, pill-shaped hole ([0080], [0086]-[0088]). Oide teaches that the elongated shape provides for a larger dimensional tolerance and helps compensate for thermal expansion ([0087]-[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would shape the through-hole of the second datum of Wu as an elongated, pill-shaped through-hole (“4-way datum to restrict the first cell carrier to four degrees of freedom of movement”), as taught by Oide, given that such a shape would help provide for a larger dimensional tolerance and help compensate for thermal expansion.
Claims 9, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2013/0122340), and further in view of Gunther et al. (US 2016/0064721).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu teaches a battery pack (“battery system”) (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 3-4 (and the annotated Figure 3 below), Wu teaches that the battery pack comprises a first battery module (202) comprising a frame (22) (“first cell carrier”), wherein said frame comprises a “first datum,” wherein said first datum is configured to both align with a “second datum” of a heat dissipation element (30) (“thermal component”) and “at least “partially receive a screw (50) (“locating feature”) of a second battery module (201) comprising a frame (22) (“second cell carrier”) ([0027]-[0034]).
It is noted that the first datum is interpreted to “at least partially receive” said screw insofar as because at least a portion of the first datum receives said screw therein. The instant Claim does not explicitly require that the claimed locating feature is an integral, structural feature/component of the claimed second cell carrier. Furthermore, the screw is interpreted as being a locating feature “of” the frame of the second battery module because, as illustrated in Figures 3-4 (and the annotated Figure 3 below), the screw not only locates the frame of the second battery module, but also extends from said f3rame.
Wu does not explicitly teach that the battery pack is comprised in an electric vehicle.
However, Gunther teaches a battery assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Gunther teaches that the battery assembly is comprised in an electric vehicle so that the battery assembly may be used to power the electric drivetrain of the vehicle and propel the vehicle ([0002]-[0003], [0033]-[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the battery pack of Wu into an electric vehicle, as taught by Gunther, given that such a modification would provide the electric vehicle with a means of powering an electric drivetrain to at least help propel the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
805
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Wu, as modified by Gunther teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 9), the first datum comprises a circular through-hole which restricts the frame to two degrees of freedom of movement (“2-way datum to restrict the first cell carrier to two degrees of freedom”).
Regarding Claim 16, Wu, as modified by Gunther, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 9), the first datum and the second datum each comprises a circular through-hole (“the first datum and the second datum each comprising a same type of datum”).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2013/0122340), and further in view of Gunther et al. (US 2016/0064721) and Sengoku et al. (US 2016/0035497).
Regarding Claim 10, Wu, as modified by Gunther, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 9), the screw is structured so as to comprise a vertical post (“post”) having threads formed on an outer surface thereof (each thread is interpreted as a “cutout” of the vertical post).
Wu, as modified by Gunther, does not explicitly teach that at least a portion of a thread is configured to receive an adhesive.
However, Sengoku teaches an electrical storage module (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 6, Sengoku teaches that the module comprises a hole which receives a set screw (80), wherein the set screw comprises a vertical shaft portion (802) that engages with the inner surface of the hole ([0033]). Sengoku teaches that in order to help prevent the set screw from coming loose, an adhesive is applied at least to the external threaded portions that are formed on the outer surface of the vertical shaft portion ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would configure the screw threads of Wu, as modified by Gunther, to receive an adhesive (“configured to receive an adhesive”), as taught by Sengoku, to help prevent the screw from coming loose.
Regarding Claim 11, Wu, as modified by Gunther teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 9), the screw is structured so as to comprise a vertical post having threads formed on an outer surface thereof (each thread is interpreted as a “tapered portion”).
Wu, as modified by Gunther, does not explicitly teach that at least one thread provides an adhesive flow path.
However, Sengoku teaches an electrical storage module (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 6, Sengoku teaches that the module comprises a hole which receives a set screw (80), wherein the set screw comprises a vertical shaft portion (802) that engages with the inner surface of the hole ([0033]). Sengoku teaches that in order to help prevent the set screw from coming loose, an adhesive is applied at least to the external threaded portions that are formed on the outer surface of the vertical shaft portion ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would configure the screw threads of Wu, as modified by Gunther, to receive a flow of adhesive thereon (“adhesive flow path”), as taught by Sengoku, given that such an adhesive would help the screw from coming loose.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2013/0122340), and further in view of Gunther et al. (US 2016/0064721) and Okada et al. (US 2010/0167115).
Regarding Claim 12, Wu, as modified by Gunther, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
Wu, as modified by Gunther, does not explicitly teach that the frame of the second battery module comprises a rib as instantly claimed which is configured to deform as instantly claimed.
However, Okada teaches a battery system (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 7, Okada teaches that the system comprises insulating separators (15) positioned between adjacent battery cells (1) ([0038]). While not illustrated, Okada teaches that the insulating walls may be constructed with ribs protruding beyond a surface thereof, wherein the ribs are configured to deform in response to physical contact to help absorb dimensional differences between surfaces ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the frame of the second battery module of Wu, as modified by Gunther, with deformable ribs, as taught by Okada, that protrude beyond a surface thereof, given that such ribs would be operable to deform in response to physical contact with the frame of the first battery module to thereby help absorb dimensional differences of the surfaces of the battery modules that face one another upon construction of the battery pack.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2013/0122340), and further in view of Gunther et al. (US 2016/0064721) and Oide et al. (WO 2022230469, using the equivalent US 2024/0194998 for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 15, Wu, as modified by Gunther, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 9), the second datum comprises a circular through-hole.
Wu does not explicitly teach that the second datum comprises a 4-way datum to restrict the frame to four degrees of freedom of movement.
However, Oide teaches a power storage device (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 5, 7, Oide teaches that the device comprises a protruding portion (30) which is fit into a hole portion (40), wherein the hole portion is an elongated, pill-shaped hole ([0080], [0086]-[0088]). Oide teaches that the elongated shape provides for a larger dimensional tolerance and helps compensate for thermal expansion ([0087]-[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would shape the through-hole of the second datum of Wu, as modified by Gunther, as an elongated, pill-shaped through-hole (“4-way datum to restrict the first cell carrier to four degrees of freedom of movement”), as taught by Oide, given that such a shape would help provide for a larger dimensional tolerance and help compensate for thermal expansion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 further limits the battery system of Claim 1 by requiring that the thermal component comprises a plurality of stacked sections defining the second datum, and a diameter of the second datum in at least one of the plurality of sections varying from the diameter of the second datum in a remining one of the plurality of sections.
The closest prior art reference relevant to Claim 5 is Wu (as described in the prior art rejections above).
However, Wu’s “thermal component” (i.e. heat dissipation element (30)) is neither taught nor suggested to comprise a plurality of at least partially stacked sections defining the datum as instantly claimed. Consequently, Wu does not teach a varying diameter characteristic as instantly claimed because, at a minimum, Wu does not teach a plurality of stacked sections as claimed. Furthermore, neither Gunther, nor Oide, nor Sengoku, nor Okada cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Wu.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 further limits the battery system of Claim 9 by requiring that the thermal component comprises a plurality of stacked sections defining the second datum, and a diameter of the second datum in at least one of the plurality of sections varying from the diameter of the second datum in a remining one of the plurality of sections.
The closest prior art reference relevant to Claim 13 is Wu (as described in the prior art rejections above).
However, Wu’s “thermal component” (i.e. heat dissipation element (30)) is neither taught nor suggested to comprise a plurality of at least partially stacked sections defining the datum as instantly claimed. Consequently, Wu does not teach a varying diameter characteristic as instantly claimed because, at a minimum, Wu does not teach a plurality of stacked sections as claimed. Furthermore, neither Gunther, nor Oide, nor Sengoku, nor Okada cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Wu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights