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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-8, 10, 13-15, 16, 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.
Claim 1 reads “A stacked power supply modules”…”one first structural member and at least one second structural member”, “of the at least two power supply modules are limited and/or fixed in at least one direction through the corresponding first structural member”, “and the at least two power supply modules are limited and/or fixed in three directions through the first structural members together with the second structural members”. Claim 1 is not precise enough. It is not clear whether the applicant means a stack of power supply modules or a stacked power supply module. Furthermore, there is no description of the first structural member in claim 1 only, its purpose to limit or fix in one direction. The applicant later refers to the first and second structural members it is unclear if these are the same structural members that were being mentioned before. The plural indicates that there seem to be multiple, while the claim states at least one which could include one only. The limitation limited and/or fixed is not clear. The scope of claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 16, 20 read “The stacked power supply modules according to claim 1,…”. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the individually stacked power supply modules according claim 1 or if the applicant is referring to the preamble of claim 1 “a stacked power supply modules according to claim 1”, and is therefore rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 3 reads “The stacked power supply modules according to claim 1, wherein a part, provided on the power supply module, of each of the first structural members is in an integral structure with the power supply module or in a discrete structure interconnected with the power supply module.” [0058] reads “the part is provided on a body of the power supply module 10; or, the part and the power supply module 10 may be discrete structures connected to each other, i.e., the part is provided separately”. The claim is unclear. I am interpreting this to mean that one part of the structural member (fixing member) can be either a part of the module itself and does not require fixing onto the module or the fixing member can be a total separate body for example a bracket that needs to be screwed onto the module.
Claim 4 states “wherein a part, provided on the power supply module, of each of the first structural members comprises a lifting member.” There is no lifting member shown in the figures.
Claims 5-8, read, “The stacked power supply modules according to claim 1, wherein the at least two power supply modules share all the second structural members…” claim one requires at least one structural member. Claims 5-8 include a plurality of second structural members.
Furthermore claims 5-8 describe that modules may be divided into groups but do not disclose any criteria for grouping modules. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 13, 14, 15 read “…wherein the other end of each of the second structural members is mechanically connected…”. There is no previous reference to any end of the second structural member. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (CN209447901U; hereinafter Su) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210218103 A1; hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Su teaches stacked power supply modules, a stacked battery pack (Abstract) with a structural member (fixing member, Abstract) but fails to disclose the second structural member. Zhang however, in the same field of endeavor namely batteries, discloses a first and second structural member (plurality of fastening members) applied to battery cells. Zhang discloses a battery module consisting of N-stacked battery cells and fastening members (Abstract). The battery module includes a plurality of fastening members, and the plurality is greater than two (Summary). Zhang however, in the similar field of
endeavor, namely batteries, discloses to use the fixing members of the battery module to connect the individual battery cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the fixing structures per the teachings of Zhang, to battery modules as disclosed by Su and the motivation to do so would have been to improve a similar device with a known technique.
Regarding claim 2, Su teaches stacked power supply modules and a concave/convex fixing structure, a connecting rod (Fig. 2). The transverse cross-sectional shape of the connecting rod is matched with the shape of the base 1 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Su teaches stacked power supply modules, with a fixing rod in alignment with the battery structure forming a discrete structure interconnected with the power supply module.
Regarding claims 5,6 ,7, 8 Su teaches stacked power supply modules. Su fails to teach that at least two power supply modules share all the second structural members. Zhang, however, teaches the structural/fixing members and discloses a fixing member being shared in Figure 25.
Regarding claim 9, Su teaches stacked power supply modules. Su fails to teach that at least two power supply modules share all the second structural members and that the second structural members are provided at one end, or both ends of the power supply modules in a stacking direction. Zhang, however, teaches the shared structural/fixing members provided at one end of the power supply module.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 12, Su teaches stacked power supply modules but fails to teach each that each of the second structural members is in an integral structure with a corresponding power supply module or in a discrete structure interconnected with the power supply module. Zhang, however, shows fixing members being discrete structures interconnected with the power supply module (Figure 25).
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 15, Su teaches stacked power supply modules but fails to teach that the second fixing member is mechanically connected to a support structure; wherein the support structure is an external structural member or a wall. Zhang, however, discloses a fixing member being mechanically fixed to a wall (Figure 25).
Regarding claims 16,17, 18, 19, Su teaches stacked power supply modules but fails to disclose connections for energy flow and signal flow and that the electrical connection is realized by means of hot -plugging or cold-plugging and that the electrical connection is a sequential or spanning connection. Zhang however, in the same field of endeavor namely batteries, discloses hot-plugging males (171) and females (173) as required by the claim (Fig. 3-5) and the hot-plug male and female parts are being connected in stacking direction [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the connections for energy flow per the teachings of Zhang, to battery modules as disclosed by Su and the motivation to do so would have been to improve a similar device with a known technique.
Regarding claim 20, Su teaches vertically stacked power supply modules (Figures 1 and 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (CN209447901U; hereinafter Su) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20210218103 A1; hereinafter Zhang) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kohler (US 20180076426; Kohler).
Regarding claim 4, Su teaches stacked power supply modules but fails to teach a lifting member. Kohler however, in the same field of endeavor namely batteries teaches a rechargeable battery module that includes a housing, … a plurality of lift members at different locations of the housing, wherein the lift members provide a plurality of lift points for the rechargeable battery module which enable the rechargeable battery module to be lifted in a plurality of different orientations (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the lifting members per the teachings of Kohler, to the stacked battery modules as disclosed by Su and the motivation to do so would have been to improve a similar device with a known technique.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights