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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 15, 2023; August 11, 2025 and August 12, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received June 15, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received June 15, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the lower limit of the range in claim 3 should be amended to include an explicit unit (i.e., “3 to 5 mm” should be “3 mm to 5 mm”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the limiting groove" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 recites “a plurality of limiting grooves” and it is unclear which limiting groove(s) the term “the limiting groove” (singular form) is referring to in the presence of plural limiting grooves recited in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the limiting groove" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 recites “a plurality of limiting grooves” and it is unclear which limiting groove(s) the term “the limiting groove” (singular form) is referring to in the presence of plural limiting grooves recited in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the limiting groove" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 recites “a plurality of limiting grooves” and it is unclear which limiting groove(s) the term “the limiting groove” (singular form) is referring to in the presence of plural limiting grooves recited in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8 and does not remedy this issue. Therefore claim 9 is rejected for at least this reason.
Claim 8 recites “second sealant strips”. However the number of sealant strips are unclear since the Neither claim 8, nor claim 1 recite any other sealant strips (no first sealant strips). Thus, the recitation of claims 8-9 of "second sealant strips " is unclear as to whether or not claims 8-9 define only one sealant strips as explicitly claimed or two sealant strips as implied by the term "second". It is noted that claim 6 recites "first sealant strips" but that claims 8-9 are not dependent upon claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN213483864U).
As to claim 1, Xu discloses a battery pack comprising:
a box 111,112,113, having a cavity with an opening on one side; and
a cell module 10, accommodated in the cavity;
wherein
a plurality of limiting grooves 141 are spaced apart on an inner sidewall 111 and 112 of the cavity, and convex ribs 142 in one-to-one correspondence with and in fit with the limiting grooves 141 are disposed on an outer sidewall of the cell module 10; and
a gap for receiving glue potting (potting clearance) 121, 122 that communicates with the opening is defined by a part of the inner sidewall 111, 112 of the cavity and a part of the outer sidewall of the cell module 10, wherein the part of the inner sidewall 111, 112 of the cavity is configured to avoid (spaced apart/away from area where) the limiting grooves 141 (reside), and the part of the outer sidewall of the cell module 10 is configured to avoid (spaced apart/away from the area where) the convex ribs 142 (reside, Figs. 3-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
719
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the inner sidewall of the cavity comprises at least two groups of sidewalls, sidewalls 111 and 112 being a first group and sidewalls 113 on each side being a the second group (Figs. 2-3) and the limiting grooves 141 are made on the first group 111 and 112 opposite each other (Figs. 2 and 3).
As to claim 7, a pair of limiting convex strip groups are disposed on the inner sidewall of the cavity and two limiting convex strips in each group and the inner sidewall of the cavity define the limiting groove 141 (Fig. 4 above).
As to claim 10, the battery is employed in a vehicle thus teaching of a vehicle comprising the battery pack of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN213483864U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ming et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0288278).
Xu 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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN213483864U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Chi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0326569) or Eom et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0296292).
Xu teaches of the inner sidewall of the cavity comprises a first sidewall and a second sidewall disposed opposite to each other along a first direction (see annotated Fig. 3 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
558
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Xu teaches of a limiting groove 141 made on the first and second sidewalls;
Xu teaches of a corresponding convex rib 142 disposed on two opposite sides of the cell module assembly 10.
Xu does not appear to teach of plural limiting grooves and plural convex ribs spaced apart along a second direction (claim 4).
It would have been reasonably apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Xu by providing plural limiting grooves and corresponding convex ribs in a spaced apart relationship along the second direction.
For example, Chi is drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery pack structures having modules therein and structures to retain the modules in placement in the pack housing. Chi teaches that more than one rib/groove structure 413/160, 413/260 (Fig. 12) can be provided along a common direction of the module to maintain the placement and orientation of the module within the pack along the entire direction span of the pack.
PNG
media_image4.png
422
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Eom is drawn to the same field of endeavor, battery pack structures having modules therein and structures to retain the modules in placement in the pack housing. Eom teaches that more than one rib/groove structure 210/110 (Fig. 2) can be provided along a common direction of the module to maintain the placement and orientation of the module within the pack along the entire direction span of the pack.
PNG
media_image5.png
606
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The inclusion of plural rib/grooves along a side of a battery module within a battery pack enclosure as taught by either Chi or Eom provides a predictable design whereby the clearance between the module outer wall and pack housing inner wall can be maintained across the span of a given direction of the pack.
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 Xu to have plural limiting grooves and corresponding convex ribs as taught by either Chi or Eom since it would have provided a predictable design whereby the clearance between the module outer wall and pack housing inner wall can be maintained across the span of a given direction of the pack.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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: none of the cited prior art of record, alone in combination, is held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the battery pack of claim 5 wherein at least one first sealant strip is disposed on two sides of the cell module along the first direction separately; and each first sealant strip is located on one side of a corresponding convex rib along the second direction.
According to the disclosure (para. [0075]): the features of claim 5 ensures a tight fit between the convex rib and the corresponding limiting groove , and prevents the glue from overflowing from a fit clearance between the convex rib and the corresponding limiting groove during a potting operation.
Xu mentions a sealing strip (para. [0062]) but the sealing strip is a rubber strip simply placed between the inner wall of the battery pack housing 11 and the outer surface of the battery cell module 10. Xu does not reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious at least one sealant strip disposed and located in the manner recited in claim 5. Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 5 and allowable for at least the same reasons.
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: none of the cited prior art of record, alone in combination, is held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the battery pack of claim 8 where in the box comprises the bottom plate and second sealant strips located between the bottom plate and the limiting groove(s) and arranged along a second direction are disposed at two ends of the bottom plate along a first direction.
According to the disclosure (para. [0091]): the features of claim including the sealant strips located, arranged and disposed in the manner recited in claim 8 ensures a firmer fit between the cell module and the box. In addition, if the glue is poured in from a space between the limiting convex strips corresponding to two adjacent limiting grooves among a plurality of limiting grooves on the same side, the second sealant strip can prevent the glue from overflowing from the bottom of the cell module.
Xu mentions a sealing strip (para. [0062]) but the sealing strip is a rubber strip simply placed between the inner wall of the battery pack housing 11 and the outer surface of the battery cell module 10. Xu does not reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious at least second sealant strips located, arranged and disposed in the manner recited in claim 8. Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8 and allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0020004 discloses a battery pack and module having a clearance between the two defined by protrusions formed on the interior of the pack enclosure 210 alone.
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