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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim 20; claim 12 remains cancelled. Claims 1-11, and 13-21 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-19 and 21 are maintained. The rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn; However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 1, that the prior art fails to disclose the cell are supported on the first and second connecting surfaces, is not persuasive in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the art in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application. The instant disclosure, at best, describes “the cells …to be supported on the supporting member”, see cancelled claim 12, or “the cells can be supported by the support member” (instant published para. [0014]), and that the aforementioned support is achieved through the “supporting region” on the cell, see [0056, 0064] of the published disclosure. In other words, the text does not appear to explicitly describe the cells supported on the first and second connecting surfaces. Thus, the examiner looks to applicant’s figures for clarification. Applicant’s figures (see Figs. 10, 12, and 14) show the cells 100 are coordinated with the connecting surface(s) (e.g., 216, see Fig. 10) by way of a first connecting plate 232 on end plate body 231 of end plate 208 (see instant Figs. 12, and 14 that clearly label the end plate and components thereof, and Fig. 10, which shows the end plate in association with the cells but does not label the elements of the end plate); it is the first connecting plate 232 of the end plate 208 which is supported on the connecting surface 216. In view of the instant figures, the cells were considered “supported on the first and second connecting surfaces” if the cells were coordinated with an end plate which comprises connecting plate(s) supported on the connecting surface(s), even though these features were not recited until depended claim 19. Yoneyama shows the cells are coordinated with the connecting surface (labelled in annotated Fig. 4 on page 4 of the Office action) by way of connecting plate 44 on end plate body 42 of end plate 30; the connecting plate 44 is supported on the connecting surfaces (see rejection of claim 1 (page 4) and the rejection of claim 19 (page 7) that described claimed limitations by way end plate (30) and connecting plate (44) on the connected surfaces). In view of the foregoing, Yoneyama reads on the claimed limitations in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 15-16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama (US 2020/0411816) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2012/0028105), hereinafter Yoneyama and Kumar, both of record.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-8, and 15, Yoneyama suggests an energy storage device comprising a battery pack (e.g., 10, Figs. 1-4, [0017-0045]) comprising: a cell array (12, see Fig. 3) including a plurality of cells (13), each of the plurality of cells (13) having a cell body (14, [0023]); and a support member (e.g., 50, see Fig. 4) having a first side beam (i.e., 50, on left of cell module 12) and a second side beam (i.e., 50, on right of cell module 12), the first side beam and the second side beam including first and second inner surfaces (see “inner surfaces” in annotated Fig.4) extending upward to define a cavity therebetween and terminating at an upper end at corresponding first and second upward facing connecting surfaces (labelled “connecting surface” in annotated Fig. 4), with the cell array being disposed in the cavity (see e.g., Figs. 3-4); wherein each cell body is substantially cuboid with a length L, a thickness D, and a height H (Fig. 3), wherein each of the plurality of cells is supported on the first and second connecting surfaces (e.g., through 30, 40, see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
966
1076
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoneyama suggests the length L (i.e., distance between the inner surfaces of the beams 50) is greater than the height H (length of the beams 50), and the height H is greater than or equal to the thickness D (length in the Y direction of plate 16) of the cell body (see Fig. 3). Yoneyama does not explicitly suggest each cell body satisfies 600 mm <L< 2500 mm (or 600 mm <L< 1500 mm), 4 < L/H <21 (or 9 < L/H 13), 10 < L/D <208 (or 23 < L/D < 208, or 50 < L/D < 70). However, Kumar suggests battery cell dimensions that enable high capacity within a practical format for convenient handling at practical costs, [0035, 0057-0058]. Specifically, the length (e.g., h) and height (e.g., w) are each selected between about 50-750 mm such that the area (w x h) is between 25,000 mm2 to 50,000 mm2, while the thickness (t) is between 7-18 mm such that the volume is 250,000-550,000 mm3. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The selection of a length L between 600 mm <L< 2500 mm, or 600 mm <L< 1500 mm (e.g. h = 650 mm, which is between 50 mm and 750 mm suggested in Kumar), a height H (i.e., w = 65 mm, which is between 50 mm and 750 mm suggested in Kumar), and a thickness (i.e., t = 10 mm, which between 7-18 mm), as suggested by Kumar, results in a desirable facial area of 42,250 mm2 and desirable volume of 422,500 mm3 (i.e., 650 mm x 65 mm, which is between 25,000 m2 and 50,000 mm2; 650 mm x 65 mm x 10 mm = 422,500 mm3, [0058]), where there is an expectation of high capacity, and practical dimensions with convenient handling at practical costs, [0058]. The aforementioned ranges suggest 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 21, or 9 ≤ L/H ≤ 13 (i.e., 650mm/65mm = 10), 10 < L/D <208, or 23 < L/D < 208, or 50 < L/D < 70 (i.e., 650mm/10mm = 65). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the aforementioned length, height, and thickness with the expectation of high capacity, and convenient handling at practical costs, as suggested by Kumar. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP 2144.05, I. and II.
Regarding Claim 2, Yoneyama suggests each cell body (14) comprises a case (15) and a cover plate (16) for sealing the case, Fig. 3, [0023].
Regarding Claims 13 and 16, Yoneyama suggest the battery pack is mounted in a vehicle, hence suggests the support member is a vehicle tray that accommodates the cell array, [0037] and a vehicle comprising the battery pack.
Regarding Claim 9, as set forth under the rejection of claim 1, Yoneyama suggests a length (h) between 50-750 mm, such that facial area (hxw) is between 25,000 mm2 – 50,000 mm2 (e.g., h x w = 500 mm x 90 mm = 45,000 mm2, where L(h)/H(w) = 500/90 = 5.5, thereby satisfying claim 1) and volume is between 250,000 mm3 to 550,000mm3 (i.e., h x w x t, e.g., 500 mm x 90 mm x 12 mm = 540,000 mm3), thereby suggesting 0.0005 mm-2 L/V 0.002 mm-2 (i.e., 500 mm/540,000 mm3 = 0.00093 mm-2, thereby satisfying claim 9).
Regarding Claim 10, as set forth under the rejection of claims 1 and 3-8, Yoneyama suggests a length (h, e.g., between 50-750 mm), such that facial area (hxw) is 25,000 mm2 – 50,000 mm2 (e.g., 650 mm x 65 mm) and volume between 250,000 mm3 to 550,000mm3 (i.e., h * w * t, e.g., 650 mm x 65 mm x 13 mm = 549,250 mm3), which suggests H/V between 0.0001 mm-2 to 0.00015 mm-2 (i.e., 65 mm/549,250 mm3)
Regarding Claim 11, as set forth under the rejection of claims 1 and 3-8, Yoneyama suggests a length (h, e.g., between 50-750 mm), such that facial area (hxw) is 25,000 mm2 – 50,000 mm2 (e.g., 650 mm x 65 mm) and volume between 250,000 mm3 to 550,000mm3 (i.e., h * w * t, e.g., 650 mm x 65 mm x 10 mm = 422,500 mm3), which suggests surface area S/V between 0.1 mm-1 to 0.25 mm-1 (i.e., (650mmx65 mm)/422,500 mm3 = 0.1 mm-1.
Regarding Claim 19, Yoneyama suggests an end plate (30, 40) having an end plate body (e.g., 31, 42) and a connecting plate (44) protruding outwardly from the end plate body; and wherein the connecting plate (44) is connected to the first connecting surface to support the plurality of cells on the first connecting surface, see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 4.
Regarding Claim 20, Yoneyama suggests a lower panel (22) defining a lower end of the cavity, with the first and second inner surfaces (labelled in annotated Fig. 4 provided in the rejection of claim 1) of the first and second side beams (50) extending upward from the lower panel (22), and an upper panel (44) connected to an upper surface of each of the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 3), and the first and second connecting surfaces (of side beams 50, labelled in annotated Fig. 4) to support the plurality of cells on the first and second connecting surfaces.
Regarding Claim 21, as set forth under the rejection of claim 1, Yoneyama suggests a battery pack comprising: a cell array including a plurality of cells, each of the plurality of cells having a cell body; and a support member having a first side beam and a second side beam, the first side beam defining a first connecting surface facing upwardly and the second side beam defining a second connecting surface facing upwardly; wherein each cell body is substantially cuboid with a length L, a thickness D, and a height H, wherein an entire length of each of the plurality of cells is disposed between the first and second connecting surfaces; and wherein each of the plurality of cells is supported by the first and second connecting surfaces (e.g., via 30, 40, or 22 as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 20, respectively). The length, height and thickness suggested by Yoneyama are detailed under the rejection of claim 1, hence not repeated here; in short, Yoneyama suggests the length L is greater than the height H and the height H is greater than or equal to the thickness D of the cell body. Further the ratio of length to height was detailed under the rejection of claim 1 in view of Kumar, hence not repeated here; in short, Yoneyama, as modified by Kumar, suggests each cell body meets 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 21 (i.e., 650/65) with the expectation of high capacity, and convenient handling at practical costs (see rejection of claim 1 for more details).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama and Kumar in view of Newman (US 20170225558, of record), hereinafter Newman.
Regarding Claim 14, Yoneyama does not suggest the supporting member is a vehicle chassis that accommodates the cell array. However, Newman suggests a vehicle chassis (14) includes a supporting member (28) that accommodates a cell array (16), thereby forming a battery protection system configured to protect the batteries, [0022-0025]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the supporting member is a vehicle chassis with the expectation of supporting and protecting the battery cells, as suggested by Newman.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneyama and Kumar in view of Park (US 2011/0274955, of record), hereinafter Park.
Regarding Claims 17-18, Yoneyama does not suggest the cell body comprises metal. However, Kumar suggests electrodes are stacked in a metal can, or a pouch; pouch batteries are desirable because they allow efficient packing, low packaging weight, and a convenient format for stacking, [0049]. Park suggests the cell body (pouch) comprises metal which allows for a compact electronic device, [0010]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art each cell body comprises metal to allow for stacking of the electrodes, or a lightweight, compact electronic device, as suggested by Kumar and Park.
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729