DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This is the first office action in response to Claims filed on 09/15/2023.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “translation means” in Claim 5, and “lift system” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for “lift system” is element 150 corresponding to cylinder/jack actuated by actuator.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation “translation means” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the terms “translation means” without defining the supporting structure.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
To further advance prosecution the limitation “translation means” is interpreted as any structures that provide a translation motion.
Claim objections
Claims 1, 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 L. 6 “the plurality of batteries” should be “the plurality of battery cells”;
Claim 8 L. 2 “the upper portion” should be “an upper portion”;
Claim 11 L. 8 “a conductive lattice structure” should be “the conductive lattice structure”;
Claim 3 L. 3-4 “respective of the plurality of welding protrusions” should be “a respective protrusion of the plurality of welding protrusions”;
Claim 4 L. 5 “respective of the plurality of welding protrusions” should be “a respective protrusion of the plurality of welding protrusions”;
Appropriate correction is required and claims are interpreted as indicated above.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 207840414) in view of Miaolei (US 2024/0243439).
Regarding Claim 1: Yang discloses a battery module manufacturing clamping assembly (see annotated figure ‘414), comprising: a pallet base plate (see annotated figure ‘414) configured to support a plurality of battery cells (see annotated figure ‘414) thereon; a plurality of springs (see annotated figure ‘414) arranged on the pallet base plate; a plurality of spring caps (see annotated figure ‘414) respectively coupled to the plurality of springs, and each of the plurality of spring caps configured to interface with a lower portion (see annotated figure ‘414) of a respective battery cell (see annotated figure ‘414) of the plurality of batteries;
a clamping plate (see annotated figure ‘414, and [0032] describing the battery being clamped) providing a plurality of apertures (see annotated figure ‘414); and a lift system (see annotated figure ‘414) configured to actuate the pallet base plate between a loading position (position of Fig. 5) for arranging the plurality of battery cells on the pallet base plate and a clamped position (position the cells are in the caps; see annotated figure ‘414) where the pallet base plate and the clamping plate cause a top portion of the plurality of battery cells to be clamped for welding (see annotated figure ‘414), and wherein a pre- determined contact force is applied to the battery cells by the plurality of springs (the springs generate a pre-determined force, when in the clamping position, see annotated figure, the spring will be pressed down and in reaction will exerts a force, i.e. contact force, on the cell).
Yang does not explicitly show the clamping plate providing the plurality of apertures to facilitate welding a conductive lattice structure to each of the plurality of battery cells, and thus the top portion of the plurality of battery cells to be in contact with the conductive lattice structure.
However, Miaolei teaches a battery module manufacturing clamping assembly (assembly of Fig. 2C) having a plurality of battery cells (1301; Fig. 2C); and a clamping plate (1304; Fig. 2C) providing a plurality of apertures (see annotated figure ‘439) to facilitate welding a conductive lattice structure (1312; Fig. 2C) to each of the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 2C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yang to have the clamping plate providing the plurality of apertures to facilitate welding a conductive lattice structure to each of the plurality of battery cells, and thus the top portion of the plurality of battery cells to be in contact with the conductive lattice structure, as taught by Miaolei, i.e. to add the conductive lattice structure. Such a modification would enable electrically connect the cell between each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
1004
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1104
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Miaolei further teaches wherein the conductive lattice structure comprises an electrical bus bar (see annotated figure ‘439) and a plurality of welding protrusions (see annotated figure ‘439) coupled to the electrical bus bar, and Yang in view of Miaolei further teaches wherein each of the plurality of springs are configured to apply the pre-determined contact force when compressed to provide contact between each of the plurality of battery cells and respective of the plurality of welding protrusions (see Fig. 2b of Miaolei, and annotated figure ‘414 wherein when the lift system goes down, the top plate goes down and the spring are compressed, in return the spring pushed upward against the plate, and the conductive lattice containing the welding protrusion).
Regarding Claim 3: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 2, as stated above, and Miaolei further teaches the plurality of apertures of the clamping plate expose first weld sites (see annotated figure ‘439) between first cell terminals (see annotated figure ‘439) of the plurality of battery cells and respective of the plurality of welding protrusions (see annotated figure ‘439).
Regarding Claim 4: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 3, as stated above, and Miaolei further teaches a second clamping plate portion (see annotated figure ‘439) providing a second plurality of apertures (see annotated figure ‘439) to facilitate welding the conductive lattice structure to each of the plurality of battery cells (see annotated figure ‘439), wherein the second plurality of apertures of the second clamping plate portion expose second weld sites (see annotated figure ‘439) between second cell terminals of the plurality of battery cells and respective of the plurality of welding protrusions (see annotated figure ‘439).
Miaolei is silent regarding the second clamping plate portion being a second clamping plate, i.e. the plate being two separated plates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second portion being a second plate since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
(In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)). (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
Regarding Claim 6: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Yang further discloses a pallet frame (see annotated figure ‘414) supporting the pallet base plate, and a pallet lifting plate (see annotated figure ‘414) of the lift system, wherein the pallet frame is configured to interface with the pallet lifting plate (see annotated figure ‘414).
Regarding Claim 7: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, as stated above, and Yang further discloses the lift system comprises an actuator (actuator necessarily present) for actuating the pallet lifting plate in a vertical direction (see annotated figure ‘414 , “lifting platform lifting cylinder 304 is connected to the lower lifting platform 301 to drive the lower lifting platform 301 to move up and down” [0063]).
Regarding Claim 8: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, as stated above, and Yang further discloses comprising a cell holder (see annotated figure ‘414) configured to interface with the upper portion of the plurality of battery cells to further support the plurality of battery cells on the pallet base plate (indirectly support via the cell cap).
Regarding Claim 11: A method of manufacturing (the disclosure of the system discloses its method of operation) a battery module (see annotated figure ‘414), comprising:
arranging a plurality of battery cells (see annotated figure ‘414) on a pallet base plate (see annotated figure ‘414), the pallet base plate comprising a plurality of springs (see annotated figure ‘414) and a plurality of spring caps (see annotated figure ‘414) coupled to the plurality of springs, each of the plurality of spring caps configured to interface with a lower portion (see annotated figure ‘414) of a respective battery cell; providing a clamping plate (see annotated figure ‘414), the clamping plate providing a plurality of apertures (see annotated figure ‘414); and actuating the pallet base plate toward the clamping plate to cause a top portion (see annotated figure ‘414) of the plurality of battery cells to be in contact with the conductive lattice structure for welding, wherein a pre-determined contact force is applied to the battery cells by the plurality of springs (the springs generate a pre-determined force).
Yang does not explicitly show inserting a conductive lattice structure between the plurality of battery cells and the clamping plate and thus the plurality of aperture to facilitate welding a conductive lattice structure to each of the plurality of battery cells.
However, Miaolei teaches a battery module manufacturing clamping assembly (assembly of Fig. 2C) and method of operating having a plurality of battery cells (1301; Fig. 2C); and a clamping plate (1304; Fig. 2C) providing a plurality of apertures (see annotated figure ‘439) to facilitate welding a conductive lattice structure (1312; Fig. 2C) to each of the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 2C) inserting a conductive lattice structure (1312; Fig. 2C) between the plurality of battery cells and the clamping plate (Fig. 2C) and thus the plurality of aperture to facilitate welding the conductive lattice structure to each of the plurality of battery cells (1312; Fig. 2C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation of the system of Yang to have inserting a conductive lattice structure between the plurality of battery cells and the clamping plate and thus having the plurality of aperture to facilitate welding a conductive lattice structure to each of the plurality of battery cells, as taught by Miaolei, i.e.to add the conductive lattice structure. Such a modification would enable electrically connect the cell between each other.
Regarding claim 12: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, as stated above, and Miaolei further teaches the plurality of apertures of the clamping plate expose first weld sites (see annotated figure ‘439) between first cell terminals of the plurality of battery cells and respective of a plurality of welding protrusions (see annotated figure ‘439) of the conductive lattice structure, the method further comprising welding the first cell terminals of each battery cell to a respective welding protrusion (see annotated figure ‘439).
Regarding Claim 13: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, and Yang in view of Miaolei teaches translating the pallet base plate (see annotated figure ‘414) to a second clamping plate portion (see annotated figure ‘439) providing a second plurality of apertures (see annotated figure ‘439) to facilitate welding the conductive lattice structure to each of the plurality of battery cells, wherein the second plurality of apertures of the second clamping plate expose second weld sites (see annotated figure ‘439) between second cell terminals (see annotated figure ‘439) of the plurality of battery cells and respective of the plurality of welding protrusions (see annotated figure ‘439), and the method further comprising: actuating the pallet base plate (see annotated figure ‘414) toward the second clamping plate to cause the top portion of the plurality of battery cells to be in contact with the conductive lattice structure and the second clamping plate portion for welding (see annotated figure ‘414), wherein the pre-determined contact force is applied to the battery cells by the plurality of springs (see annotated figure ‘414, Fig. 2b of Miaolei, and annotated figure ‘414 wherein when the lift system goes down, the top plate goes down and the spring are compressed, in return the spring pushed upward against the plate, and the conductive lattice containing the welding protrusion).
Miaolei is silent regarding the second clamping plate portion being a second clamping plate, i.e. the plate being two separated plates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second portion being a second plate since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
(In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)). (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
Regarding Claim 14: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, and Miaolei teaches welding the second cell terminals of each battery cell to a respective welding protrusion (see annotated figure ‘439) of the conductive lattice structure (see annotated figure ‘439).
Claims 9-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 207840414) in view of Miaolei (US 2024/0243439) and further in view of Cummins (GB 2545567).
Regarding Claims 9: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding a clamping finger coupled to the clamping plate against which the plurality of battery cells are clamped.
However, Cummins teaches a battery module manufacturing clamping assembly (assembly of Fig. 1) a clamping finger (6; Fig. 3, 6 is protrusion and therefor a finger) coupled to a clamping plate (3; Figs. 1-2) against which a plurality of battery cells (2; Fig. 1) are clamped.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamping plate of Yang to have a clamping finger coupled to the clamping plate against which the plurality of battery cells are clamped, as taught by Cummins. Such a modification would enable to provide further clamping.
Regarding Claim 10: Yang in view of Miaolei and Cummins teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Cummins further teaches the clamping finger is made at least partially of an electrically isolating material (“elastomer” L. 12 P. 5).
Regarding Claim 15: Yang in view of Miaolei teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding clamping the top portion of the plurality of battery cells against a corresponding clamping finger coupled to the clamping plate
However, Cummins teaches a battery module manufacturing clamping assembly (assembly of Fig. 1) and method of operating comprising clamping a top portion (portion facing 3; Fig. 1) of a plurality of battery cells (2; Fig. 1) against a corresponding clamping finger (6; Fig. 3) coupled to the clamping plate a clamping finger (6; Fig. 3) coupled to a clamping plate (3; Figs. 1-2) against which a plurality of battery cells (2; Fig. 1) are clamped.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamping plate of Yang to have clamping the top portion of the plurality of battery cells against a corresponding clamping finger coupled to the clamping plate, as taught by Cummins. Such a modification would enable to provide further clamping.
Allowable subject matter
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as to correct any indefiniteness issue and/or objection if present.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741