DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/383496, “BOX ASSEMBLY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY, AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE”, is the Continuation of a PCT application filed on 5/31/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 7/13/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/13/26 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 9-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu (CN216488330U; see machine translation), Park (US 2023/0207941) and Johnson (US 2021/0151841).
Regarding claims 1, 11-14, Wu teaches a box assembly comprising a mounting cavity to fix a plurality of battery cells, two oppositely oriented end plates (items 1), a partition piece comprising a main body and two stress relief pieces (items 31) forming a corner with the main body (item 3) and being fixedly connected or welded to the end plates ([0039]), thereby teaching most of the features of claim 1 (see Figs. 5-7 especially, also the citations of the 5/1/26 Non-Final Rejection). As to claim 11-13, Wu further teaches the box assembly as a subcomponent of a battery module and/or a battery and the mounting cavity being formed in the box assembly to fix the plurality of battery cells, which are arranged in two adjacent rows with a partition piece disposed therebetween (e.g. see Figs. 5-7 and [0036] which describes that battery cell 2 are connected to middle side plate 3 and outer side plate 4 by a fixing adhesive 6). As to claim 14, Wu further teaches that the inventive battery is developed to address problems associated with battery packs intended for use in new energy vehicles ([0002, 0003]), thus an electrical device configured to be provided electrical energy by the battery is disclosed or at least obvious in view of the teachings of the Background Section of Wu combined with the inventive concepts.
As to the 7/13/26 amendment, Wu fails to further teach a grooved recess disposed in the inner or outer walls of the end plates, and each of the two stress relief pieces fixedly connected to a bottom wall of the groove a respective plate. Instead, Wu appears to disclose a structure wherein the stress relief pieces (items 31) pass through slots (items 13) of the end plate and are configured to rest upon the surface of the end plate as best seen in Fig. 8.
However, a skilled artisan at the time of invention would have understood that a groove recess could be provided in the surface of the end plates for receiving the stress relief parts, so that a flush lateral surface can be created. For example, in the battery art, Park teaches (e.g. Figs. 1-4) a battery module comprising end plates 140 and 150 which are provided with grooved recesses 143, 144, 153 and 154 sized to accommodate stress relief portions 121 and 131 which may sit on the bottom wall of the grooved recess, thereby creating a smooth external surface (Figs. 1-4, paragraph [0044]).
Park does not appear to teach an express motivation for using the for adopting a flush lateral surface. However, in the battery art, Johnson teaches that when a battery housing is comprised of various components, the components may be joined together by use of various joints known in the woodworking art (paragraph [0149-150,162]). Johnson further teaches that appropriate design of the joint may provide a small lateral profile for the housing (paragraph [0162]) and that small lateral profile is generally desirable for reducing overall space and volume which is advantageous in some applications (paragraph [0131]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Wu by providing grooved recesses in the outer walls of the end for accommodating the stress relief portions in the grooved recess for the benefit of creating a smooth external lateral surface as taught by Park, which is a beneficial design improvement in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 2-3, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee further teaches the two stress relief pieces formed as right angle bends from a main body (see Figs. 5 and 7), thereby suggesting the claimed structure. It is noted that “formed in one piece by bending” is a process limitation which is not required of the prior art (MPEP 2113), which does teach the structure implied by the process. The 87-93% range is found to be obvious over the illustrated right angle in the Figs. 5 and 7. Although no measurement of the schematically illustrated angle is permitted, the drawings may be relied on for what they would reasonably convey to a skilled artisan at the time of invention (MPEP 2125). Here, the drawings suggest right angles, which are equivalent to or at least close to 90%, particularly since a non-right angle would not provide the T shape illustrated in Fig. 5 on the component 3, which is a plan view from above of the item 3.
Regarding claims 4-6, 15-16, 18 and 20, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Lee teaches the stress relief pieces protruding though the end plates through openings 13 (Fig. 6), and Lee is modified in view of Park such that grooved recesses are provided to receive the stress relief portions of the partition members as described in the rejection of claim 1. The structure recited in claims 4, 5 and 18 follows from this modification because the stress relief portions 31 are disposed on opposite sides of the partition piece 3, thus the openings of Fig. 6 are expected in opposite relationship on the two end plates such that the two grooves and their respective bottom walls of the two end plates face away from one another. Further, as the modification in view of Park provides a recessed groove in the end plate for accommodating a stress relief portion, the bottom of the groove must, or at least could obviously, contain the opening which allows the stress relief portion to pass therethrough. As to claims 6, since Lee teaches the use of welding to join the stress relief portion to the end plate, it would have been obvious to weld the stress relief pieces to the bottom wall of their respective grooves since this is the large contact area location. As to claims 15, 16 and 20, Lee suggests the stress relief parts 31 extending through slots of the end plate and bent to extend parallel to a wall of the end plate such as at Fig. 8. Park further teaches the bent portion 121 extending parallel to and directly contacting the bottom wall of the groove 143, thus the recited structure is obvious over the combination as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wu further teaches wherein the box assembly (module frame) further comprises two side plates (outer side plate 4, [0036] & Figure 4 and 7); the two side plates (items 4) are arranged apart along a direction perpendicular to the preset direction and are opposite to each other (see Figure 4); and two opposite ends of each of the two side plates (items 4) along the direction perpendicular to the preset direction are fixedly connected to the two end plates (items 1) respectively, by welding (see Figures 4 and 7 & [0036] which describes the outer side plate 4 is connected to each end plate 1 by welding).
Regarding claim 14, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wu further teaches that the inventive battery is developed to address problems associated with battery packs intended for use in new energy vehicles ([0002, 0003]), thus an electrical device configured to be provided electrical energy by Wu is disclosed or at least obvious in view of the teachings of the Background Section of Wu.
Regarding claim 17, the cited art remains as applied to claim 16. The joint described in the Lee-Park combined embodiment appears to be a lap-joint where the stress relief part is jointed onto the bottom wall of the groove (Lee modified in view of Park Fig. 3) because a lap-joint is simply a woodworking joint where two pieces to be attached are placed with large lateral surfaces contacting one another [rather than merely edges]. Furthermore, it is noted that Johnson expressly teaches lap joints as a suitable woodworking joint for connecting housing components together (paragraph [0162]), thus if the Lee-Park joint were found not to be the required lap-jointed connection, substitution of a lap joint therefore would be an obvious modification since Johnson teaches various woodworking joints, including lap joints, as suitable alternatives.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu (CN216488330U; see machine translation), Park (US 2023/0207941), Johnson (US 2021/0151841) and Chen (CN108526693A; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, the cited art remains as applied to claim 6. Wu further teaches a laser welding method (see [0041], but does not explicitly state wherein the welding comprises at least one of laser filler wire welding or cold metal transfer welding.
In the battery art, Chen teaches a laser filler wire welding method use to connect an end plate and a side plate of power battery (see [0009]). Chen further teaches that the laser filler wire welding method prevents defects such as cracks from occurring during the welding process and further produces a well-formed joint with high-tensile strength and good fatigue resistance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser welding method in Wu with the laser filler wire welding method of Chen to join the stress relief piece to the end plate and thus create a well-formed joint with high-tensile strength and good fatigue resistance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu (CN216488330U; see machine translation), Park (US 2023/0207941), Johnson (US 2021/0151841) and Liu (CN209249521U; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Wu teaches welding for fixing the stress relief portion to a corresponding end piece, but does not appear to teach riveting for fixing.
In the battery art, Liu teaches that the stress relief piece (folded edges 21) and the end plate can be connected via rivets and that riveting is a more cost-effective means of fixing compared to welding (see [0036, 0040]).
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 the method of riveting to connect the stress relief piece and the end plate of Wu since riveting is a cost-effective means of fixing structures to end plates as taught by Liu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 19, the closest prior art includes Wu (CN216488330U), Park (US 2023/0207941) and Johnson (US 2021/0151841) which are relevant to the claimed invention as described in the rejection of claim 1. As described in the rejection, the cited art considered in combination suggests a box assembly for mounting battery cells, comprising end plates which may be fixed to bent stress relief pieces of a partition piece, and may further have grooves recessed therein for receiving for a benefit such as providing a flush lateral surface, thereby providing a more volume efficient design than is present without the receiving grooves. However, as argued by applicant, Wu generally teaches folded edges 31 [corresponding to the claimed stress relief pieces] disposed on an outer side of end plates for welding and fixing (Wu paragraph [0039]). Thus, the modification of the structure to include receiving grooves would provide opposite grooves recessed toward each other such that the bottom walls of the grooves face away from each other [similar to present claim 18].
To the contrary, new claim 19 requires that “the two end plates include a first end plate and a second end plate, and the groove recessed into each of the two end plates forming two grooves that are facing each other such that the bottom wall of the groove of the first end plate faces toward the bottom wall of the groove of the second end plate”, requiring oppositely faced grooves compared to the claim 18 embodiment. This structure is not found to be fairly suggested by the cited art because as Wu suggests the folded edges disposed on outer sides of the end plates, there is no apparent reason given by the these references to provide the grooves on the inner sides of the end plates facing each other such that the bottom walls of the two grooves face toward one another. Accordingly, claim 19 is not rejected over the cited art.
The closest prior art further includes Liu (CN 209249521) which appears to disclose stress relief pieces (items 21) fixed to an inner surface of an end plate, but the place where the stress relief pieces are fixed is not reasonably readable on a groove recess, in consideration of applicant’s description of such recesses in the detailed description (e.g. Figs. 8-13).
An updated search has been performed, but has not yielded closer prior art which cures this deficiency of the previously applied art, or which independently fairly teaches or suggests claim 19 as a whole including the above-described features in combination with those of base claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 is not rejected, but is objected to for being dependent on a rejected base claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights