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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Soleski et al [PGPUB 2015/0072177].
Claim 1: Instant claim recites “the columnar projection being slidably coupled to the side plate along the first direction.” The recitation of “slidably” is a process limitation that does not have distinguishing scope from a structure that is pre-assembled whereby the final product is substantially the same as the product with a slidably vs fixed columnar projection. Instant claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 because the prior art teaches all positively recited structural features in the location of the battery pack when assembled. Instant claim is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because making a device separable (dividing a single unit into multiple parts) is typically viewed as an obvious engineering choice rather than an inventive step [MPEP 2144.04]. Specifics to channels, holes, or attachment features to make a feature separable also fall into the category of obvious engineering choices; although no specific channels are claim at this time, making this of record may help advance prosecution in a timelier manner.
Soleski teaches a battery module [abstract]. A plurality of battery cells (54) are arranged in a first direction with side plates (76) covering the periphery of the plurality of battery cells in a second direction [Fig 6-7]. The housing side plate (76) comprises a plurality of columnar projections (72) which protrude toward the plurality of batter cells and are arranged between adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells along a first direction [Fig 6-7; 0089-0097]. The columnar projections are configured to have a dimension in the first direction and therefore meet all positively recited structural features of the instant claimed columnar projection within the final product of the battery pack.
Claim 2: Soleski teaches a width of the columnar projection to vary [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 3: Solenski teaches a columnar projection that has a width that decreases in a location relative to the outer position adjacent the side plate to an inner position adjacent the plurality of batteries [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 4: Solenski teaches the columnar projection to have a wedge shape with an apex portion protruding longest from the side plate and side surfaces on both sides extending to converge towards the apex portion [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 5: Solenski teaches the apex portion to have a substantially rounded curved surface [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 6: Solenski teaches the side surfaces to have a rounded curved surface [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 7: Solenski teaches the apex portion of the columnar projection to have a convex curved surface towards the outside of the columnar projection and the side surface of the columnar projection of the columnar projection are curved surface concave toward inside the projection [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 8: Solenski teaches the side surface of the columnar projection to each have a concave shape [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 9: Solenski teaches a columnar portion to have regions that are interpreted to read on the claimed first curved surface contacting the side plate and a second curved surface in contact with the apex portion whereby this can be opposite sides of the apex or the same curve being split into two regions [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 10: Solenski teaches the first and second curved surfaces to have a curvature at opposite positions with each side surface of columnar projection respectively as a boundary [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 11: Solenski teaches the side surface of the columnar projection to have an inflection between the first curved surface and second curved surface [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 12: Solenski teaches a first curved surface includes a concave curved surface from the side plate to the inflection and a second curved surface being convex curved towards the apex [Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 13: Solenski teaches the batteries to have a width direction towards the side plate and the planar portion along the first direction [Fig 6] wherein a corner portion where the narrow side surface and the wide side surface of each of the plurality of battery cells come into contact with each other faces one of the side surface of the columnar projection protruding from the side plate [Fig 6, Fig 8-9; 0091-0097].
Claim 14-24: Instant claim pertains to an intermediary product whereby the final product of the instant claim has a guide that is filled with the sliding element. Solenski teaches all positively recited structural features of the instant claimed invention. Making the product separable features, especially in situations where the feature are not be regularly removed and re-engaged, are obvious engineering tasks MPEP 2144.04 Making Separable. Since the prior art teaches all positively recited structural features of the battery back, the claims stand rejected.
Claim(s) 14-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soleski et al [PGPUB 2015/0072177] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kruse (DE 102020105893).
Claim 14-24: Instant claim pertains to an intermediary product whereby the final product of the instant claim has a guide that is filled with the sliding element. Solenski teaches all positively recited structural features of the instant claimed invention. Making the product separable features, especially in situations where the feature are not be regularly removed and re-engaged, are obvious engineering tasks MPEP 2144.04 Making Separable. Since the prior art teaches all positively recited structural features of the battery back, the claims stand rejected.
En arguendo the step of making separable is considered patentably distinct, Kruse teaches a battery housing (20) having a plurality of battery elements (30) which are arranged in a stacking direction (B) with a separating unit (40) located between the battery elements [Abstract]. Stacking direction distances are adjusted through a slidable engagement (24, 42) [Fig 2]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ribs of Soleksi to have a slidable features (24, 42) as taught by Kruse in order to adjust the rib feature during assembly to more favorably fit cells with ease. This technical advantage is different than that of the instant claimed invention because it provides variability of rib location relative to the battery cell, whereas the instant invention is a static location once assembled, and thus applicable to MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights