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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on Application 18/419,346 filed 01/22/2024 by Mansik Cho, Shidong Park, Moonsung Song, Jangwoong Bae, and Jaemin Kim.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 3 is 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 3 is dependent upon claim 2. Line 2 of claim 3 recites “a plurality of protrusions” on the first and second side plate. Claim 3 is dependent upon claim 2. Line 2 of claim 2 recites “a plurality of protrusions” on the first middle plate. Therefore it is unclear if the “plurality of protrusions” of claim 3 are taken to be the same or different from the plurality of protrusions of claim 2. For purposes of examination the protrusions of claim 3 are taken to be different than the protrusions of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by KANAZAWA (JP 2021/022434 A).
With respect to claim 1. KANAZAWA teaches a battery pack 1 which includes a plurality of cell stacks 2 (paragraph 0030). The cell stacks are arranged in a stacking direction (paragraph 0031) and is taken to be the claimed first direction. As seen in Figure 1 the cell stacks are adjacent to each other in a second direction. There is a fixing mechanism 4 formed within the battery case 3 (paragraph 0030). The cell fixing mechanism 4 is inserted into the battery case 3 to press and fix each of the cell stacks 2 housed in the case 3 against the wall (paragraph 0041) the fixing mechanism then is taken to be the claimed first middle plate. As seen in Figures 1-2 this middle plate then extends in the first direction between the side surfaces of the first and second cell stacks. The battery case 3 then has short side wall portions 33 and are taken to be the claimed front end plate and rear reinforcement plates (Figure 1). The battery case 3 then includes long side wall portions 32 (paragraph 0036) which are taken to be the claimed first and second side plate.
With respect to claim 2. KANAZAWA teaches the fixing mechanism includes a plurality of protrusions 63 (paragraph 0056) and are located on both sides of the fixing mechanism 4 (figures 7-8).
With respect to claim 9. KANAZAWA teaches a front end plate 33 and a second end plate 35 which is shorter than the end plate 33 (see Figure 1).
With respect to claim 10. KANAZAWA teaches as seen in Figure 1 there may be at least a third and fourth battery packs arranged between the fixing mechanism 4 (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 11-12. KANAZAWA teaches at least a second cell fixing member 4 formed between the third and fourth stacks (Figure 1). These then include a front reinforcement plate and a rear end plate coupled to the second middle plate (Figure 1). The rear reinforcement plate and front reinforcement plate overlap in the first direction (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 16. KANAZAWA teaches the first and second middle plates, being the fixing mechanism 4, are spaced apart from each other in the first direction and cover the side surfaces of the cell stacks, and the side plate covers the side surface of the cell packs (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 17. The front reinforcement plate and rear reinforcement plate pass through a space between the first two middle plates and extend in a direction crossing the direction in which the first and second middle plates extend (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by HE (CN 218385484 U).
With respect to claim 1. HE teaches a module frame which includes two end plates 1 and two side plates 2 which form a rectangular frame (paragraph 0037). The module frame includes a middle plate 3 which separates two battery packs 4 (paragraph 0039). The middle plate 3 includes a plate body 30 and a fixing component 31 (paragraph 0040).
With respect to claim 4. HE teaches that the middle plate 3 includes coupling portions, being the fixing component 312 (paragraph 0040). As seen in Figure 3 this includes a first and second coupling portions which couple to the front end plate and rear reinforcement plates (see Figures 1 and 3).
With respect to claim 5. HE teaches the front coupling portion includes a top and lower fixing component 31, each of which includes the fixing component 312 (Figures 2-3). Therefore the bottom of the fixing components 31 including the lower fixing components 312 are then lower than the first middle plate in a third direction (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 6. HE teaches the end plates are provided with fixing grooves 11 that match the fixing member 312 (paragraph 0044). The fixing member 312 of the middle plate is placed in the fixing grooves 11 to facilitate the fixed connection between the fixing members 312 and the end plates 1 (paragraph 0044).
With respect to claim 7. HE teaches the front coupling portion includes a top and lower fixing component 31, each of which includes the fixing component 312 (Figures 2-3). Therefore the bottom of the fixing components 31 including the lower fixing components 312 are then lower than the first middle plate in a third direction (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 8. HE teaches the coupling portions of the rear reinforcement plate protrudes upwardly in a third direction at the central position of the rear reinforcement plate, being the end plate 1 (Figure 1 and 5).
With respect to claim 10. HE teaches that there may be a plurality of middle plates and more than two battery packs with the middle plate between each pair of adjacent battery packs (paragraph 0039).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 13-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAZAWA (JP 2021/022434 A) in view of CHOI (US 2021/0313648 A1).
Claim 3 is dependent upon claim 2 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of KANAZAWA. KANAZAWA does not explicitly teach additional protrusion on the inner surfaces of the first and second side plates.
CHOI teaches a battery pack which includes a plurality of battery cells arranged along a first direction, and spacers arranged along this first direction (paragraph 0043). As seen in Figure 2 the spacer extends along the unit cells on the first and second side plates (paragraph 0048 and Figure 2). The spacing unit includes the connection bars SC and spacing bars SS (paragraph 0043). The spacing bars SS are taken to be the claimed protrusion on the side plate. The spacer is beneficial as it provides a gap that may accommodate swelling of the battery cells during charging and discharging, and may accommodate volume expansion caused by the swelling between the battery cells, thereby reducing or preventing excess stress from being generated between adjacent battery cells and reducing or preventing structural binding of the battery pack along an arrangement direction of the cells from deteriorating due to accumulation of the excessive stress (paragraph 0053).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the spacer of CHOI between the side plates and the cells of the battery pack of KANAZAWA as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results, as CHOI teaches the benefits to such a structure is to accommodate the swelling of the battery cells.
Claim 13 is dependent upon claim 12 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of KANAZAWA. KANAZAWA does not explicitly teach the rear and front reinforcement plate are coupled to first coupling portions of the side plates arranged at central positions of the side plates.
CHOI teaches a battery pack which includes an end block 120 arranged between modules adjacent to each other (paragraph 0064). Coupling blocks 120c are formed at both ends of the end block 120 which may be aligned with the coupling ends 140c of the side plates 140 (paragraph 0069). The coupling ends 140c are then located at central positions of the side plate (Figure 7).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to connect the reinforcement plates of KANAZAWA with the connection to the side plates as taught by CHOI, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
With respect to claim 14. CHOI teaches the coupling portions of the side plates are recessed and have a height less than the side plates (see Figure 7).
With respect to claim 15. CHOI teaches as seen in Figure 2 the side plate 140 includes cutout portion arranged above and recessed downwards to the coupling portions.
Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 11, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of KANAZAWA. KANAZAWA does not explicitly teach the end plates comprise additional coupling portions coupling the ends of the rear plates with second and third coupling portions to connect with the side plates.
The rejection of CHOI from above is repeated here. CHOI then teaches coupling the end plates 110 with the side plates 140 (Figure 1). The end plates include coupling blocks 110c at the ends of the first end block 110 which aligns with coupling ends 140c at the end of the side plate 140 (paragraph 0067).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine fitting elements of CHOI to attach the end plates and side plates of KANAZAWA as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results, as CHOI teaches a known method of attaching the end plates and the side plates.
With respect to claim 19. CHOI further teaches the end of the side plate includes a where is a wide upper portion adjacent to the terminals and a narrow lower portion with the coupling portions (see Figures 2 and 7-8). Having these elements be on the end plate instead would have been oblivious at the time the invention as filed, as this would be a rearrangement of parts.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAZAWA (JP 2021/022434 A) in view of CHOI (US 2021/0313648 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of SAKURAI (US 2016/0240827 A1).
Claim 20 is dependent upon claim 18 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of KANAZAWA and CHOI. Neither KANAZAWA nor CHOI explicitly teaches where the first and second side plate include coupling portions which are bent to cover the coupling portion of the end plates.
SAURAI teaches a power storage module which includes end plates and connection bar (abstract). The end plates are connected to each other with the pair of connection bars 20a and 20b (paragraph 0020). The connection bar includes bended end portions 42a at each end portion of the connection bar which covers the short sides of the end plates (paragraph 0026). Holes are formed in the end portions 42a which corresponds to hole portions in the end plates (paragraph 0027).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the connection member of the side plate and end plates of KANAZAWA and CHOI with the bent side plate portions of SAURAI, as this is a simple substitution of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights