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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on June 16, 2026:
Claims 1-10 are pending;
The claim objection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in light of the amendment;
The 112 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in light of the amendment;
The 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Chi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0326569).
As to claim 1, the phrase potting clearance is only held to be a clearance the term potting is not a further limiting feature of the clearance and the claims do not require the presence of a potting in the clearance only that the clearance is present. Furthermore, the disclosure only mentions a potting clearance and does not appear to effectively include any conventional potting in the clearance. Therefore the potting aspect of the clearance is an intended use of the clearance.
As to claim 1, Chi discloses a battery pack, comprising:
a box 410, having four sidewalls 412 forming a cavity with an opening on one side, and a bottom plate opposite to the opening; and
a cell module 100/200/300, accommodated in the cavity;
wherein a plurality of limiting grooves 413/413a are spaced apart on an inner side of a sidewall of the box, and a plurality of convex ribs 160/260 in one-to-one correspondence with and in fit with the limiting grooves 413/413a are disposed on an outer sidewall of the cell module 100/200/300 corresponding to the sidewall 412 of the box 410; and
a clearance that communicates with the opening is defined by a part of the inner sidewall 412 of the box and a part of the outer sidewall of the cell module 100/200/300.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
316
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP § 2114.
As to the potting clearance, the structure of the battery pack of Chi defines a clearance in the same manner as claim 1, noting that claim 1 only requires the clearance itself and does not effectively require a potting. Furthermore, the disclosure references a potting clearance but does not teach of any effective potting in the clearance nor of conventional materials that might be recognized as potting (e.g., epoxy, silicone, polyurethane, acrylic, etc.). The clearance of Chi is of sufficient size to receive potting and is therefore a sufficient potting clearance.
As to claim 2, the four sidewalls 412 of the box 410 are connected to form the cavity with two groups of sidewalls opposite each other and the limiting grooves are formed on inner sides of at least one group of sidewalls opposite each other as shown in Figs. 11-12.
As to claim 4, the four sidewalls of the box comprise a first sidewall and a second sidewall disposed opposite to each other along a first direction; the plurality of the limiting grooves are formed on inner sides of the first sidewall and the second sidewall separately respectively and spaced apart along a second direction (left right or lateral direction); the plurality of the convex ribs are spaced apart and correspondingly disposed on two opposite outer sidewalls of the cell module 100/200/300 corresponding to the first sidewall and the second sidewall separately respectively; and the first direction (left right or lateral direction) and the second direction are perpendicular to each other and both directions are parallel to a plane in which the opening is located (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
567
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the battery pack is further employed in a vehicle (para. [0022], for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 10 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0326569) in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004822).
In the alternative if the clearance is held to be a potting clearance including a potting therein, such an addition would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art as follows.
As to claim 1, Chi discloses a battery pack, comprising:
a box 410, having four sidewalls 412 forming a cavity with an opening on one side, and a bottom plate opposite to the opening; and
a cell module 100/200/300, accommodated in the cavity;
wherein a plurality of limiting grooves 413/413a are spaced apart on an inner side of a sidewall of the box, and a plurality of convex ribs 160/260 in one-to-one correspondence with and in fit with the limiting grooves 413/413a are disposed on an outer sidewall of the cell module 100/200/300 corresponding to the sidewall 412 of the box 410; and
a clearance that communicates with the opening is defined by a part of the inner sidewall 412 of the box and a part of the outer sidewall of the cell module 100/200/300.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
316
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to the potting clearance, the structure of the battery pack of Chi defines a clearance in the same manner as claim 1, noting that claim 1 only requires the clearance itself and does not effectively require a potting. The clearance of Chi is of sufficient size to receive potting and is therefore a sufficient potting clearance.
As to claim 2, the four sidewalls 412 of the box 410 are connected to form the cavity with two groups of sidewalls opposite each other and the limiting grooves are formed on inner sides of at least one group of sidewalls opposite each other as shown in Figs. 11-12.
As to claim 4, the four sidewalls of the box comprise a first sidewall and a second sidewall disposed opposite to each other along a first direction; the plurality of the limiting grooves are formed on inner sides of the first sidewall and the second sidewall separately respectively and spaced apart along a second direction (left right or lateral direction); the plurality of the convex ribs are spaced apart and correspondingly disposed on two opposite outer sidewalls of the cell module 100/200/300 corresponding to the first sidewall and the second sidewall separately respectively; and the first direction (left right or lateral direction) and the second direction are perpendicular to each other and both directions are parallel to a plane in which the opening is located (see annotated Fig. 11 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
567
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the battery pack is further employed in a vehicle (para. [0022], for example).
Chi does not teach of the clearance including a potting thus not explicitly defining the clearance therein as a potting clearance.
Hashimoto is drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery pack designs with components for positioning and retaining battery cells or modules within a pack housing. Hashimoto recognized that it was conventionally regarded in the art to fill spaces in a battery pack with potting adhesive to eliminated gaps in a battery pack and provide added protection (paras. [0069]; [0085]-[0086]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Chi by providing potting compound between the exterior battery pack housing and internal batteries/module as taught by Hashimoto since it would have effectively eliminated gaps in the battery pack and provided added protection.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0326569) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ming et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0288278).
Chi teaches of a nominal clearance gap but does not appear to limit the clearance in a range from 3-5mm.
Ming, is drawn to the field of endeavor, providing thermal conductive adhesives in battery systems. Ming developed a suitable thermally conductive adhesive which can be suitably applied to thickness ranging from 0.01-10mm (para. [0019]) while providing good thermal conductivity.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clearance between the battery pack wall and module of Chi to be on the same low mm thickness order as taught by Ming since it would have provided a suitable clearance to receive thermally conductive adhesive, provided good thermal transfer, good adhesion and sufficient clearance between the module and pack enclosure to provide tolerance for local dimensional changes to the battery pack during operation. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Finally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0326569) in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004822) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ming et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0288278).
Modified Chi teaches of a nominal clearance gap but does not appear to limit the clearance in a range from 3-5mm.
Ming, is drawn to the field of endeavor, providing thermal conductive adhesives in battery systems. Ming developed a suitable thermally conductive adhesive which can be suitably applied to thickness ranging from 0.01-10mm (para. [0019]) while providing good thermal conductivity.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clearance between the battery pack wall and module of Chi to be on the same low mm thickness order as taught by Ming since it would have provided a suitable clearance to receive thermally conductive adhesive, provided good thermal transfer, good adhesion and sufficient clearance between the module and pack enclosure to provide tolerance for local dimensional changes to the battery pack during operation. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Finally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0326569) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN213483864U).
Chi does not appear to teach of a plurality of limiting convex strip groups where two strips in each group and the inner sidewall of the cavity defining one limiting groove.
Xu is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to a battery pack and structure for retaining batteries within the pack. Xu teaches that it was known to effectively provide a gap or clearance between a battery pack housing and the internal battery module. Xu additionally recognized that a clearance structure included a p[air of convex strips in each group on the sidewall to define a limiting groove to which a corresponding rib is provided within the groove to effectively orient the battery module in the housing.
PNG
media_image4.png
360
492
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would been a matter of routine design choice to modify the groove/rib design of Chi with other known designs including a plurality of limiting convex strip groups where two strips in each group and the inner sidewall of the cavity defining one limiting groove as taught by Xu since it would have effectively and predictably provided an equivalent structure for defining a clearance between the battery pack housing and interior battery module.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0326569) in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0004822) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN213483864U).
Modified Chi does not appear to teach of a plurality of limiting convex strip groups where two strips in each group and the inner sidewall of the cavity defining one limiting groove.
Xu is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to a battery pack and structure for retaining batteries within the pack. Xu teaches that it was known to effectively provide a gap or clearance between a battery pack housing and the internal battery module. Xu additionally recognized that a clearance structure included a p[air of convex strips in each group on the sidewall to define a limiting groove to which a corresponding rib is provided within the groove to effectively orient the battery module in the housing.
PNG
media_image4.png
360
492
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would been a matter of routine design choice to modify the groove/rib design of Chi with other known designs including a plurality of limiting convex strip groups where two strips in each group and the inner sidewall of the cavity defining one limiting groove as taught by Xu since it would have effectively and predictably provided an equivalent structure for defining a clearance between the battery pack housing and interior battery module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7 and 10 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 5-6, see item 10 of the previous Office Action, incorporated herein.
As to claims 8-9, see item 11 of the previous Office Action, incorporated herein.
The reasons for allowance stand in light of the rejections above and the withdrawn rejections in the previous Office Action for at least those reasons expressed in the previous Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights