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 .
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN 113782889A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below).
As to claim 1, Zhou discloses a rechargeable battery module (figure 1), comprising:
a pair of end plates located at both ends in a first direction (figure 1, end walls 130) in which a plurality of battery cells are stacked (figure 1, battery cells 300), and
a pair of side plates located at both sides in a second direction crossing the first direction to connect the pair of end plates to each other (figure 1, side walls 120),
wherein the side plates comprise:
a metal plate having rigidity (figures 13-16, reinforcing structure 170, [0068]);
an insulating part integrally molded to the metal plate (as disclosed in paragraph [0068], the housing 100 of the battery module, including side walls 120, may be constructed of an insulating material with reinforcing structure 170 secured on the outer surface of the walls, lines 549-554); and
a rib protruding between adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells in the insulating portion to support lateral surfaces of the adjacent battery cells (figure 2, partition plates 140).
As to claim 2, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 1, and further discloses wherein, in the side plate, the metal plate is made of aluminum [0066]. However, the product-by-process limitations of claim 2 (injection molding) are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 2 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art. However, while the limitation directed towards injection molding is not given patentable weight, it is appreciated that Zhou does disclose the use of injection molding to form the structure of the battery module [0065].
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN 113782889A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below) in view of Reitzle et al. (US 20160111693A1) as applied to Claim 2 above, additionally in view of Lin et al. (US 20170012259 A1), and further in view of Rink (US 5842265 A, as disclosed in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024).
As to claim 3, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the metal plate comprises a plurality of through-holes, nor that the insulating part comprises an outer insulating part connected to an outer surface of the metal plate through a through-hole of the plurality of through-holes and protruding from the outer surface.
Lin discloses a battery module having a metal plate comprising a plurality of through-holes disposed through the metal plate (Figure 2, positioning holes 31). However, Lin does not disclose having an outer insulating part connected to an outer surface of the metal plate through a through-hole of the plurality of through holes. Instead, Rink discloses the insulating part comprises an outer insulating part connected to an outer surface of the metal plate through a through-hole of the plurality of through-holes and protruding from the outer surface (Column 2, lines 44-60) so that insulating material can be positioned on opposing sides of a plate. Rink is analogous art with the present application because it would be reasonably pertinent to use the teachings of Rink to solve the problem in the present application of needing insulating material on both sides of a metal plate that are connected through a through-hole to increase insulation of the battery module.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include holes within the metal plate of the sidewall so that the insulating material can be positioned on opposing sides of the metal plate and connected through the through-holes to provide additional insulation on the exterior of the battery module.
Claims 4-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN 113782889A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 114937843A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below).
As to claim 4, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 1, Zhou et al. discloses the rectangular battery (figure 1) but does not disclose the rectangular shape battery further comprising a first convex round structure of a lateral surface at four corners of a planar cross-section with respect to the first direction and the second direction.
Instead, Zheng discloses a battery module that includes battery cells that have a rectangular shape, and comprise a first convex round structure of a lateral surface at four corners of a planar cross-section with respect to the first direction and the second direction (figure 6, battery cells 11). As shown in Zheng, the curved structure of the battery cells allows the battery module to additionally include curved grooves to better secure the battery cells within the module while also including additional insulating material to protect the battery cells [00150]-[00152].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use battery cells that have convex round surfaces along the corners of the battery cells as the curved corners of the battery cells would allow for additional structures to be included within the battery module to secure the battery cells in place.
As to claim 5, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the rib comprises a first concave round structure corresponding to the first convex round structure of the lateral surface of a battery cell of the battery cells in a planar cross-section with respect to the first direction and the second direction.
Zheng discloses a battery module that has a series of ribs with each rib having a first concave round structure corresponding to the first convex round structure of the lateral surface of a battery cell of the battery cells in a planar cross-section with respect to the first direction and the second direction (figures 10 and 11, first recess 4211 and second recess 4221). As shown in Figure 10 of Zheng, the curved structures of the recesses are designed to form around the edge and partially along the sides of the battery cells instead of just contacting against the edge of the battery cells to better secure the battery cells within the battery module.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the ribs within the battery module match the shape of the battery cell’s corners to provide additional points of contact between the battery cells and the battery module to better receive and secure the battery cells within the battery module.
As to claim 6, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 5, and further discloses wherein the rib is formed long in a third direction crossing the first direction and the second direction to correspond to an entire height of the battery cell (figure 2, partition plates 140).
As to claim 9, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein a ratio of a thickness of the metal plate to a thickness of the insulating part is 16.7% to 66.7%.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As to claim 10, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein a thickness of the metal plate is 0.5 to 2.0 mm, a thickness of a portion of the insulating part, the portion on one side of the metal plate, is 0.3 to 0.6 mm, a thickness of the rib is 3 mm, nor wherein the thickness of the portion is shared by a thickness of the insulating part and the thickness of the rib.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN 113782889A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 114937843A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Bachmann et al. (DE 102013015753A1, machine translation is used for rejection below).
As to claim 7, Zho discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 5, Zhou et al. discloses the rectangular battery (figure 1) but does not disclose wherein the batteries comprise a second convex round structure of a bottom surface and a lateral surface of the respective battery cell in a longitudinal cross-section with respect to the second direction and the third direction.
Bachmann discloses a battery module housing a series of battery cells where each battery cell is a rectangular battery and comprise a second convex round structure of a bottom surface and a lateral surface of the respective battery cell in a longitudinal cross-section with respect to the second direction and the third direction (figures 1 and 5, single cells 3). As shown in figure 5 of Bachmann, the curved structure at the bottom of the single cells helps facilitate securing the battery cells against partitions 22 so that the battery cells are properly secured within the battery module. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have battery cells with a convex round structure at the bottom of the battery to be secure battery cells within the battery module.
As to claim 8, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the rib is provided as a plurality of ribs spaced apart from each other along intervals of the battery cells in the second direction (figure 2, partition plates 140). However, Zhou fails to disclose wherein the insulating part forms a second concave round structure corresponding to the second convex round structure of the bottom surface and the lateral surface of the battery cell in the longitudinal cross-section with respect to the second direction and the third direction between adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs.
Bachmann discloses a battery module having a second concave round structure corresponding to the second convex round structure of the bottom surface and the lateral surface of the battery cell in the longitudinal cross-section with respect to the second direction and the third direction between adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs (figure 3, edge region 28). As shown in figure 3 of Bachmann, the edge region 28 extends along the length of the partition 22 before curving to continue along a width of the partition to form a curved side surface designed to receive the curved bottom of the battery cell 3 to better support the battery cell within the battery module.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have a plurality of ribs positioned between each battery cell along with having insulating parts extending from the bottom of the battery module to support the curvature at the bottom of the battery cells so that each battery cell is securely positioned within the battery module.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN 113782889A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 114937843A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below) as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Haas et al. (US 6040082A), and Bachmann et al. (DE 102013015753A1, machine translation is used for rejection below).
As to claim 11, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein a radius of curvature of the first convex round structure on the lateral surface of the battery cell is 3.5 mm, nor wherein a radius of curvature of the first concave round structure of the rib is 3 mm.
Haas discloses a battery cell having a radius of curvature of the first convex round structure on the lateral surface of the battery cell is 3 mm or more (column 9, lines 44-46), which would include the 3.5 mm radius within the present application, so that the shape of the battery will correspond to the shape of coiled electrode assembly within the battery cell (Column 9, lines 31-35. However, Haas does not disclose wherein the radius of curvature of the first concave round structure of the rib is 3 mm.
Bachmann discloses a battery module designed to house battery cells and having a series of partitions to separate battery cells like the ribs in the present application with each partition having a radius of curvature of the first concave round structure greater than 1 mm ([Figure 3, partition 22, [0067]) which would include the 3 mm disclosed within the present application. As disclosed within Bachmann, the curved structure of the partition 22 is designed to receive a curved structure of the battery cell 3 so that the battery cell is securely received between the partitions to secure the battery cells within the battery module.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the curvature of the battery cell and the curvature of the rib be similar in size to ensure that the battery cell is securely positioned within the ribs in the battery module.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN 113782889A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection below) in view of Egashira et al. (US 20220013827A1, as disclosed in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024), and further in view of Chae et al. (US 20130122339A1).
As to claim 12, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 1, but does not disclose a bus bar holder above the end plates, the side plates, and the battery cells, wherein the bus bar holder comprises a coupling groove corresponding to the rib above a side plate of the pair of side plates, nor wherein the rib is coupled to the coupling groove.
Egashira discloses a battery module that has a bus bar holder above the end plates, the side plates, and the battery cells (figure 2, bus bar plate 28) to enclose the battery module. However, Egashira does not disclose wherein the bus bar holder comprises a coupling groove corresponding to the rib above a side plate of the pair of side plates, nor wherein the rib is coupled to the coupling groove.
Chae discloses a battery module that includes a bus bar holder that further comprises a coupling groove corresponding to the rib above the side plate of the pair of side plates (figure 10, coupling groove 550 and coupling protrusion 340). The reference teaches that coupling groove 550 is designed to slide over the coupling protrusion 340 in Chae so that the bus bar holder will be secured in place on the battery module.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include a bus bar holder to enclose the battery module that is additionally designed to include a coupling groove to connect the bus bar holder to the ribs of the battery module to secure the bus bar holder in place.
As to claim 13, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the coupling groove is formed to be combined with the first concave round structure of the rib, nor where both sides of the coupling groove are formed as the first convex round structure of the battery cell.
However, it has been held that the configuration or shape of a claimed device is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (CN 113782889A, machine translation, provided in the IDS mailed on 16 April 2024, is used for rejection) in view of Yamashiro et al. (US 20220181740A1), and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20170012259 A1).
As to claim 14, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the side plates comprise a cell support part support both sides of the battery cells in the second direction, a welding portion protruding to the first direction crossing the first direction at both ends of the cell support part in the first direction to be welded to the end plate, nor that the insulating part is formed on the cell support part of the metal plate.
Yamashiro discloses a battery module that is has side plates additionally comprising a cell support part supporting both sides of the battery cells in the second direction (figure 2, bent pieces 4A), along with disclosing that the insulating part is formed on the cell support part of the metal plate (figure 2, insulating sheet 13). Bent pieces are designed to cover and support the tops and bottom surfaces of the battery stack with the insulating sheet positioned on the bent pieces to further insulate the batteries. However, Yamashiro does not disclose a welding portion protruding to the first direction crossing the first direction at both ends of the cell support part in the first direction to be welded to the end plate.
Lin discloses a battery module where the side walls of the module further include a welding portion protruding to the first direction crossing the first direction at both ends of the cell support part in the first direction to be welded to the end plate [0039]. The reference teaches having the end of the side walls having welding portions so that the side walls and end walls can be welded together so that the walls forming the battery module are securely connected.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to further include cell support parts extending from the side plates that include additional insulation to further support and insulate the battery cells within the battery module. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to further include welding portions extending from the side walls for welding the side plates and end plates together to securely connect the walls of the battery module.
As to claim 15, Zhou discloses the rechargeable battery module of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the insulating part comprises an additional insulating part at both ends of the metal plate in the first direction and both ends thereof in the third direction to insulate end portions thereof.
Yamashiro discloses a battery module that further includes additional insulating parts at both ends of the metal plate in the first direction and both ends thereof in the third direction to insulate end portions thereof (figure 2, insulating sheet 13 and insulating spacer 11) to provide additional insulation for the battery cells within the battery module.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to further include additional insulating parts within the battery module to further insulate the battery cells within the battery module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JEROME SCHULER whose telephone number is (571)272-8487. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 5712721330. 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.
/J.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727