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 .
STRUCTURAL BATTERY FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/337,181 Art Unit: 1727 January 24, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on June 19, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 8 recite an intended use for a battery. The courts have held that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP 2111.02.
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 12-20 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.
The term “high-voltage” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what batteries read on the claim and what batteries do not. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will be construed without the term “high-voltage”.
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 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(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spooner (US 2022/0238966 A1) in view of Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1).
As to Claim 1, Spooner discloses a battery, comprising: a plurality of lithium-ion cells 104 arranged in an array (reads on cells being stacked on each other), wherein the cells comprise a positive electrode layer, an electrolyte layer (not disclosed but inherently present), and a negative electrode layer stacked together, and the cells further comprise a positive and negative terminal (Abstract, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0031, 0050 and 0063]). Spooner further discloses upper and lower current collecting layers 304b,304a stacked between the outer layers 308 (reads on the structural reinforcement layers stacked on the outermost upper layer and the outermost lower layer of the cells) and the cells (Fig. 2-3 and paragraphs [0061 and 0063]). Spooner does not specifically disclose wherein the current collectors comprise carbon fiber.
However, Baseri teaches of a battery module comprising a plurality of cells and having a carbon fiber current collector for collecting current from the cells (paragraph [0025]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the current collectors of Spooner to comprise carbon fiber because Baseri taches that it is an electrically conductive material for collecting current from cells (paragraph [0025]).
As to Claim 7, the terminals of Spooner are provided between respective reinforcement layers and the current collector layers (Fig. 2-3). In addition, the courts have held that the particular placement of the layers with respect to the terminals is an obvious matter of design choice that would not have modified operation of the device, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spooner (US 2022/0238966 A1) in view of Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above and in further view of Wang (US 2018/0123177 A1).
As to Claim 2, modified Spooner does not specifically disclose an upper layer of cells and a lower layer of cells.
However, Wang teaches of a battery module comprising stacked cells having an upper cell and a lower cell, each composed of a positive electrode, electrolyte, and negative electrode (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0002 and 0017]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the number of layers of cells of modified Spooner to read on the claims because Wang teaches that a battery module that can be freely adjusted and controlled can be provided (Abstract). In addition, the courts have held that the mere scaling up of the prior art capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability in a claim to an old device, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. Furthermore, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B.
As to Claim 3, Wang teaches of collecting current from between the layers of cells (Fig. 1). In addition, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Spooner to comprise current collecting layers from between layers of stacked cells because Wang taches that a battery module that can be freely adjusted and controlled can be provided (Abstract).
As to Claim 4, Wang teaches of a stainless steel (conductive solid crystal metal material) current collector (paragraph [0007]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify battery of modified Spooner to comprise a stainless steel current collector because Wang teaches that a stainless steel collector can be used for a flexible rechargeable battery module (paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spooner (US 2022/0238966 A1) in view of Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1) and Wang (US 2018/0123177 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 and 7 above and in further view of Nakazawa et al. (US 2016/0013517 A1).
As to Claims 5-6, modified Spooner does not specifically disclose wherein the separator comprises glass fibers (glass fiber prepegs).
However, Nakazawa teaches of a rechargeable battery, comprising a separator having glass fibers (paragraph [0440]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Spooner to comprise a glass-fiber separator because Nakazawa teaches that such a material can form a porous or nonwoven sheet with excellent liquid retaining properties (paragraph [0440]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spooner (US 2022/0238966 A1) in view of Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1) and Wang (US 2018/0123177 A1).
As to Claim 8, Spooner discloses a battery, comprising: a plurality of lithium-ion cells 104 arranged in an array (reads on cells being stacked on each other), wherein the cells comprise a positive electrode layer, an electrolyte layer (not disclosed but inherently present), and a negative electrode layer stacked together, and the cells further comprise a positive and negative terminal (Abstract, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0031, 0050 and 0063]). Spooner further discloses upper and lower current collecting layers 304b,304a stacked between the outer layers 308 (reads on the structural reinforcement layers stacked on the outermost upper layer and the outermost lower layer of the cells) and the cells (Fig. 2-3 and paragraphs [0061 and 0063]). Spooner does not specifically disclose wherein the current collectors comprise carbon fiber or the claimed upper, middle and lower layer of cells.
However, Baseri teaches of a battery module comprising a plurality of cells and having a carbon fiber current collector for collecting current from the cells (paragraph [0025]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the current collectors of Spooner to comprise carbon fiber because Baseri taches that it is an electrically conductive material for collecting current from cells (paragraph [0025]).
However, Wang teaches of a battery module comprising stacked cells having an upper cell, middle cell, and a lower cell, each composed of a positive electrode, electrolyte, and negative electrode (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0002 and 0017]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the number of layers of cells of modified Spooner to read on the claims because Wang teaches that a battery module that can be freely adjusted and controlled can be provided (Abstract). In addition, the courts have held that the mere scaling up of the prior art capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability in a claim to an old device, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. Furthermore, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B.
As to Claim 9, Wang teaches of a stainless steel (conductive solid crystal metal material) current collector (paragraph [0007]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify battery of modified Spooner to comprise a stainless steel current collectors between cells because Wang teaches that a stainless steel collector can be used for a flexible rechargeable battery module (paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spooner (US 2022/0238966 A1) in view of Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1) and Wang (US 2018/0123177 A1) as applied to claims 8-9 above and in further view of Nakazawa et al. (US 2016/0013517 A1).
As to Claims 10-11, modified Spooner does not specifically disclose wherein the separator comprises glass fibers (glass fiber prepegs).
However, Nakazawa teaches of a rechargeable battery, comprising a separator having glass fibers (paragraph [0440]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Spooner to comprise a glass-fiber separator because Nakazawa teaches that such a material can form a porous or nonwoven sheet with excellent liquid retaining properties (paragraph [0440]).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (US 2018/0170165 A1) in view of Spooner (US 2022/0238966 A1) and Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1).
As to Claim 12, Nakayama discloses a vehicle, comprising: a floor 34 having a first high-voltage battery module 31a disposed thereon; and a second stacked battery module 32a,33a coupled to and defining a load supporting part of the vehicle body 3,34, (Abstract and Fig. 1-2). Nakayama does not specifically disclose the claimed structural battery.
However, Spooner discloses a battery, comprising: a plurality of lithium-ion cells 104 arranged in an array (reads on cells being stacked on each other), wherein the cells comprise a positive electrode layer, an electrolyte layer (not disclosed but inherently present), and a negative electrode layer stacked together, and the cells further comprise a positive and negative terminal (Abstract, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0031, 0050 and 0063]). Spooner further discloses upper and lower current collecting layers 304b,304a stacked between the outer layers 308 (reads on the structural reinforcement layers stacked on the outermost upper layer and the outermost lower layer of the cells) and the cells (Fig. 2-3 and paragraphs [0061 and 0063]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery modules of Nakayama to read on the claimed battery, because Spooner teaches that a modular battery with improved energy density is provided (paragraph [0058]). Spooner does not specifically disclose wherein the current collectors comprise carbon fiber.
However, Baseri teaches of a battery module comprising a plurality of cells and having a carbon fiber current collector for collecting current from the cells (paragraph [0025]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the current collectors of Spooner to comprise carbon fiber because Baseri taches that it is an electrically conductive material for collecting current from cells (paragraph [0025]).
As to Claim 13, Nakayama teaches wherein the battery modules 32a,33a read on the claimed upper and lower cells (Fig. 2).
As to Claim 18, the terminals of Spooner are provided between respective reinforcement layers and the current collector layers (Fig. 2-3). In addition, the courts have held that the particular placement of the layers with respect to the terminals is an obvious matter of design choice that would not have modified operation of the device, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery modules of Nakayama to read on the claimed battery, because Spooner teaches that a modular battery with improved energy density is provided (paragraph [0058]). Spooner does not specifically disclose wherein the current collectors comprise carbon fiber.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (US 2018/0170165 A1) in view of Spooner (US 2022/0238966 A1) and Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1) as applied to claims 12-13 and 18 above and in further view of Wang (US 2018/0123177 A1).
As to Claim 14, modified Nakayama does not specifically disclose the claimed current collecting layer.
However, Wang teaches of collecting current from between the layers of stacked (upper and lower) cells (Fig. 1). In addition, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Nakayama to comprise current collecting layers from between layers of stacked cells because Wang taches that a battery module that can be freely adjusted and controlled can be provided (Abstract).
As to Claim 15, Wang teaches of a stainless steel (conductive solid crystal metal material) current collector (paragraph [0007]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify battery of modified Nakayama to comprise a stainless steel current collector because Wang teaches that a stainless steel collector can be used for a flexible rechargeable battery module (paragraph [0007]).
As to Claim 19, modified Nakayama does not specifically teach the claimed plurality of cells.
However, Wang teaches of a battery module comprising stacked cells having an upper cell, middle cell, and a lower cell, each composed of a positive electrode, electrolyte, and negative electrode (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0002 and 0017]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the number of layers of cells of modified Nakayama to read on the claims because Wang teaches that a battery module that can be freely adjusted and controlled can be provided (Abstract). In addition, the courts have held that the mere scaling up of the prior art capable of being scaled up would not establish patentability in a claim to an old device, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. Furthermore, the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (US 2018/0170165 A1) in view of Spooner (US 2022/0238966 A1) and Baseri et al. (US 2022/0102954 A1) and Wang (US 2018/0123177 A1) as applied to claims 12-15 and 18-19 above and in further view of Nakazawa et al. (US 2016/0013517 A1).
As to Claims 16-17, modified Nakayama does not specifically disclose wherein the separator comprises glass fibers (glass fiber prepegs).
However, Nakazawa teaches of a rechargeable battery, comprising a separator having glass fibers (paragraph [0440]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Nakayama to comprise a glass-fiber separator because Nakazawa teaches that such a material can form a porous or nonwoven sheet with excellent liquid retaining properties (paragraph [0440]).
As to Claim 20, modified Nakayama does not specifically teach the claimed current collecting layers or the claimed separator (glass prepegs).
However, Wang teaches of a stainless steel (conductive solid crystal metal material) current collector (paragraph [0007]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify battery of modified Nakayama to comprise a stainless steel current collector because Wang teaches that a stainless steel collector can be used for a flexible rechargeable battery module (paragraph [0007]).
Furthermore, Nakazawa teaches of a rechargeable battery, comprising a separator having glass fibers (paragraph [0440]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of modified Nakayama to comprise a glass-fiber separator because Nakazawa teaches that such a material can form a porous or nonwoven sheet with excellent liquid retaining properties (paragraph [0440]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727