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 § 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.
Claim 2, thus dependent claims 3-5 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 partly recites “position close” to the cooling system…It is unclear what is meant by position close, how much distance is required to be within the scope of the claim. For example, how far or how close should the cooling system be in relation to the insulation layer.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by either deleting this term or add additional structural elements to define what is meant by how close.
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(s) 1 and 6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180212214A1 (Sakai)
Regarding claim 1, Sakai teaches a battery module [abs] and teaches a battery, characterized by comprising: a battery cell group [#10; battery cells] comprising a plurality of battery cells; a cooling system [thru a plurality of through holes 21a; 0070] provided on a first face [top/bottom surface of the battery module] of the battery cell group; a signal transmission assembly [#60; circuit board] provided on a second face [side of the battery module] of the battery cell group, the second face being adjacent to the first face, the signal transmission assembly comprising a busbar component [ 52a/b; connection tabs; 0061-0062; or #672/672, fig. 29; 00129] and an insulation layer [#60; 0072; it is noted the instant spec illustrates #242 is the claimed insulation layer and #60 of Saki teaches the claimed insulation layer ], the insulation layer being used to enclose the busbar component, the insulation layer having holes [#71], and the busbar component being configured to be electrically connected to the battery cells in the battery cell group at the holes [0061]; and a covering member [#70 ] for covering the signal transmission assembly [depicted below]. The following “to prevent condensed liquid generated by the cooling system from reaching the signal transmission assembly” is considered functional language. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Sakai teaches characterized in that the covering member is a cover plate [#70] that covers the second face [0072; depicted in claim 1].
Regarding claim 7, Sakai teaches characterized in that the cover plate comprises a first connecting region configured to be fixedly connected to the first face [#71 are the bolts that allows the connection; 0070].
Regarding claim 8, Sakai teaches characterized in that the cover plate further comprises a second connecting region configured to be fixedly connected to the third face of the battery cell group, the third face being parallel to the first face, Sakai teaches various embodiments, in fig. 29 Sakai teaches #671 and #672, which correspond to the claimed second connecting region 0116].
Regarding claim 9, Sakai teaches the cover plate has holes [0070; 21a], which corresponds to the drain grooves, the following “for draining the condensed liquid” is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 10, Sakai teaches characterized in that the cover plate is further provided with a confluence groove (depicted below). The following “the confluence groove being in communication with the drain groove, and the confluence groove being used to collect the condensed liquid and introduce the condensed liquid into the drain groove”, is considered functional language and is not given patentable weight. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image2.png
730
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sakai does not explicitly teach the cover plate is made of an insulation material. However, in para [0066], Sakai teaches various types of heat sealing materials that are used in the invention. Therefore, it is the examiners position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any of these types of insulation materials for the cover plate as one would expect a reasonable expectation of success and to further it would provide safety to the battery configuration by preventing short circuit. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 12, Sakai teaches characterized in that the battery cell group comprises N battery cell rows arranged in a first direction, and the battery cells in each battery cell row in the N battery cell rows are arranged in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction, and N being a positive integer, wherein the first face is perpendicular to the first direction, and the second face is parallel to a plane determined by the first direction and the second direction [0146].
Regarding claim 13, Sakai teaches characterized in that the projection of the cooling system in the first direction covers the projection of the covering member, and the first face is perpendicular to the first direction [depicted in claim 1].
Regarding claim 14, Sakai teaches characterized in that the end of the cooling system close to the covering member is provided obliquely toward the covering member [depicted in claim 1].
Regarding claim 15, Sakai teaches a power consuming apparatus, characterized by comprising a battery according to claim 1 for supplying electric energy [0142-0144].
Regarding claim 16, Sakai teaches a method for manufacturing a battery [0170], characterized by comprising: providing a battery cell group, the battery cell group comprising a plurality of battery cells; providing a cooling system, the cooling system being provided on a first face of the battery cell group; providing a signal transmission assembly, the signal transmission assembly being provided on a second face of the battery cell group, the second face being adjacent to the first face, the signal transmission assembly comprising a busbar component and an insulation layer, the insulation layer being used to enclose the busbar component, the insulation layer having holes, and the busbar component being configured to be electrically connected to the battery cells in the battery cell group at the holes; and providing a covering member, the covering member being used to cover the signal transmission assembly to prevent condensed liquid generated by the cooling system from reaching the signal transmission assembly [please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as these limitations are recited in claim 1].
Regarding claim 17, Sakai teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a battery, characterized by comprising a provision module that is used for: providing a battery cell group, the battery cell group comprising a plurality of battery cells; providing a cooling system, the cooling system being provided on a first face of the battery cell group; providing a signal transmission assembly, the signal transmission assembly being provided on a second face of the battery cell group, the second face being adjacent to the first face, the signal transmission assembly comprising a busbar component and an insulation layer, the insulation layer being used to enclose the busbar component, the insulation layer having holes, and the busbar component being configured to be electrically connected to the battery cells in the battery cell group at the holes; and providing a covering member, the covering member being used to cover the signal transmission assembly to prevent condensed liquid generated by the cooling system from reaching the signal transmission assembly [please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as these limitations are recited in claim 1].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 thus dependent claims 3-5 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:
The prior art of record does not teach:
Claim 2 : the insulation layer extends toward the cooling system to a position close to the cooling system, and is turned over at the position in a direction away from the cooling system to form the covering member. Claims 3-5 further require structural features of the claimed:
Claim 3- a turnover portion of the insulation layer is fixedly connected to a third face of the battery cell group, the third face being parallel to the first face.
Claim 4- an edge of the turnover portion of the insulation layer is provided with a folded edge region, the folded edge region being configured to be fixedly connected to the third face.
Claim 5-the insulation layer and the second face form, at the turnover position, an angle region facing the cooling system, the angle region being configured to collect a binder for bonding the cooling system.
It is noted, the Applicant must amend claim 2 in view of the 112 amendment, in addition to the allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729