DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 13-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13 of copending Application No. 18/952170 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the reference application incorporates the scope of the instantly claimed invention, noting the limitation “blanket” is interpreted to be a “covering;” and, regarding claims 2, 11, and 13-15, while the reference application claims “a first battery cell” and a “second battery cell,” but not an “array” in a “first battery array” and a “second battery array,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate each of said battery cells, so that they are adjacent to one another, in order to increase the energy associated with said power supply device, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); and, it would have been obvious to electrically connect—either in series or parallel—said duplicated batteries under the respective thermal barrier panels, in order to increase the energy associated with said power supply device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11-13 of copending Application No. 18/952170 (reference application) in view of Turpin et al (US2021280336).
The reference application claims the covering section is part of a “thermal barrier,” but does not expressly claim “the first thermal barrier panel and the second thermal barrier panel each include a flame resistant and heat insulation material” (claims 9 and 19) or “the flame resistant and heat insulation material includes mica, aerogel materials, and/or refractory ceramic fibers” (claims 10 and 20).
However, Turpin teaches a flame resistant electrical insulating material that forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing, wherein said flame resistant electrical insulating material comprises glass fibers; a particulate filler mixture, such as mica; and, an inorganic binder (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 06-14, 16-21, and 26-27).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the flame resistant electrical insulating material of Turpin, which may include mica for that of the thermal barrier of the reference application, since Turpin teaches it’s flame resistant electrical insulating material forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, wherein said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2-10 depend, the body of the claim does not claim elements that include those for the “battery pack” subject matter claimed in the preamble “A traction battery pack” (emphasis added), compared with e.g. claim 2.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al (US 2021/0288363) in view of Turpin et al (US 2021/0280336).
Regarding independent claim 11, Okada teaches a power supply device (e.g. item 100) mounted on a vehicle, said power supply device supplying power to a motor of said vehicle, wherein said power supply device comprising a battery assembly (e.g. item 9) comprising:
(i) a plurality of battery cells (e.g. items 1, annotated as 1A, 1B, and 1C in Annotated Figure 2), each cell having a rectangular outer shape and stacked so that main surfaces (e.g. items 1X) thereof face each other;
(ii) a plurality of separators (e.g. items 2, annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) sandwiched between adjacent battery cells so as to insulate said battery cells, such that each of said battery cells is sandwiched between adjacent separators,
wherein each of said separators is composed of an insulating material, such as thermoplastic, ceramics, or paper,
wherein each of said separators comprises:
(ii.a) a body plate part (e.g. item 20) sandwiched between said main surfaces 1X of adjacent said battery cells, and
(ii.b) a pair of insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21, annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2), each integrally connected to lower edges of said body plate part, such so that said pair of insulating rib parts laterally protrudes from both surfaces of said body plate part so as to be disposed on bottom surfaces (e.g. items 1T) of battery cells stacked on both sides of separator, wherein each of said insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21) comprises:
(ii.b.1) an insertion groove (e.g. item 22) on one side of said separator and
(ii.b.2) an insertion rib (e.g. item 23) on an opposite side of said separator,
said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A in Annotated Figure 2) of one separator (e.g. annotated as 2A in Annotated Figure 2) is inserted into said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B in Annotated Figure 2) of an adjacent separator (e.g. annotated as 2B in Annotated Figure 2) so that two insulating rib parts (e.g. annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2) of two adjacent separators (e.g. annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) are stacked in a three-layer structure¶
(iii) a pair of end plates (e.g. items 4) disposed on opposite respective ends of said battery assembly; and,
(iv) a pair of bind bars (e.g. items 5) that connect said end plates at said respective ends of said battery assembly
(e.g. ¶¶ 0008-11, 13-14, 21, 38, 42-48 plus e.g. Figures 1-7; and, for illustrative purposes, see Annotated Figure 2, infra), reading on “traction battery pack;” alternatively, the preamble limitation “traction” is interpreted as merely intended use and does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2111.02, said power supply device comprising:
(1) said plurality of battery cells (e.g. items 1, annotated as 1A, 1B, and 1C in Annotated Figure 2), each cell having said rectangular outer shape and stacked so that main surfaces (e.g. items 1X) thereof face each other,
(2) said plurality of separators (e.g. items 2, annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) sandwiched between adjacent battery cells so as to insulate said battery cells, such that each of said battery cells is sandwiched between adjacent separators,
wherein each of said separators is composed of said insulating material, such as thermoplastic, ceramics, or paper,
wherein each of said separators comprises:
said pair of insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21, annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2), each integrally connected to lower edges of said body plate part, such so that said pair of insulating rib parts laterally protrudes from both surfaces of said body plate part so as to be disposed on bottom surfaces (e.g. items 1T) of battery cells stacked on both sides of separator;
said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A in Annotated Figure 2) of one separator (e.g. annotated as 2A in Annotated Figure 2) is inserted into said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B in Annotated Figure 2) of said adjacent separator (e.g. annotated as 2B in Annotated Figure 2) so that two insulating rib parts (e.g. annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2) of two adjacent separators (e.g. annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) are stacked in said three-layer structure, such that a first layer of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) is above said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A) and a second layer of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) is below said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A)
(e.g. supra), noting the claimed “blanket” is interpreted as a covering; and, said separator insulating rib covers said bottom surfaces of adjacent battery cells, so is a “barrier panel” and a “barrier blanket.”
Okada teaches individual battery cells are between adjacent separators, but does not expressly teach said sandwiched battery cell is an “array” in “battery array.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate each of said battery cells, so that they are adjacent to one another along a side surface perpendicular to said main surfaces (items 1X) and bottom surface (item 1B), in order to increase the energy associated with said power supply device, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B); and,
it would have been obvious to electrically connect—either in series or parallel—said duplicated batteries between said adjacent separators, in order to increase the energy associated with said power supply device, referenced herein as “duplicated battery cell” and reading on “battery array,”
said taught duplicated battery cells (e.g. items 1) corresponding with the claimed “battery array;”
one or both of said insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21) of said separators (e.g. items 2) corresponding with the claimed “…barrier panel;” and,
said taught battery assembly (e.g. item 9) corresponding with the claimed “…barrier blanket system,”
wherein for illustrative purposes, components as numbered in Annotated Figure 2 are further provided, merely to add clarity to the record:
e.g. duplicated battery cell 1A corresponding with the claimed “first battery array;”
e.g. duplicated battery cell 1B corresponding with the claimed “second battery array;”
e.g. separator item 2A corresponding with the claimed “first…barrier panel; and,
e.g. separator item 2B corresponding with the claimed “second…barrier panel,
e.g. one or both of said taught insulating rib part item 21A of said separator item 2A—merely for illustrative purposes— corresponding with the claimed “first lateral edge flange; and,
e.g. one or both of said taught insulating rib part item 21B of said separator item 2B—merely for illustrative purposes— corresponding with the claimed “second lateral edge flange,”
reading on “a first battery array covered by a first…barrier panel of a …barrier blanket system;” “a second battery array covered by a second…barrier panel of the …barrier blanket system;” “each of the first…barrier panel and the second…barrier panel includes a first lateral edge flange and a second lateral edge flange;” and, “the second lateral edge flange of the first…barrier panel at least partially overlaps the first lateral edge flange of the second…barrier panel.”
Okada teaches said separator insulating rib covers said bottom surfaces of adjacent battery cells; and, each of said separators is composed of said insulating material, such as thermoplastic, ceramics, or paper, such that said separator insulating rib is a blanket and a barrier (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach it is “thermal” insulating.
However, Turpin teaches a flame resistant electrical insulating material that forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing, wherein said flame resistant electrical insulating material comprises glass fibers; a particulate filler mixture, which may be mica; and, an inorganic binder (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 06-14, 16-21, and 26-27).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the flame resistant electrical insulating material of Turpin, which may include mica for the insulating material of the Okada separator, including each part thereof, since Turpin teaches it’s electrical insulating material is electrically insulating and also forms a thermal or flame barrier for use in electric vehicles, wherein said material is capable of withstanding direct exposure to a 2054°C flame for at least 10 minutes without puncturing.
Okada as modified reading on “a first battery array covered by a first thermal barrier panel of a thermal barrier blanket system;” “a second battery array covered by a second thermal barrier panel of the thermal barrier blanket system;” “each of the first thermal barrier panel and the second thermal barrier panel includes a first lateral edge flange and a second lateral edge flange;” and, “the second lateral edge flange of the first thermal barrier panel at least partially overlaps the first lateral edge flange of the second thermal barrier panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
1062
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Okada as modified teaches the power supply device of claim 11, wherein Okada teaches each of said separators comprises said body plate part (e.g. item 20) sandwiched between said main surfaces 1X of adjacent said battery cells (e.g. supra),
said body plate part (e.g. item 20) corresponding with the claimed “crossbeam member,”
reading on “a crossmember beam located between the first battery array and the second battery array.”
Regarding claims 13-15, Okada as modified teaches the power supply device of claim 12, wherein Okada teaches each of said separators comprises said pair of insulating rib parts (e.g. items 21, annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2), each integrally connected to lower edges of said body plate part, such so that said pair of insulating rib parts laterally protrudes from both surfaces of said body plate part so as to be disposed on bottom surfaces (e.g. items 1T) of battery cells stacked on both sides of separator,
said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A in Annotated Figure 2) of one separator (e.g. annotated as 2A in Annotated Figure 2) is inserted into said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B in Annotated Figure 2) of said adjacent separator (e.g. annotated as 2B in Annotated Figure 2) so that two insulating rib parts (e.g. annotated as 21A and 21B in Annotated Figure 2) of two adjacent separators (e.g. annotated as 2A and 2B in Annotated Figure 2) are stacked in said three-layer structure, such that a first layer of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) is above said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A) and a second layer of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) is below said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A) (e.g. supra),
said body plate part (e.g. item 20) corresponding with the claimed “crossbeam member,”
one of said insertion rib (e.g. annotated as 23A) of said separator (e.g. annotated as 2A) corresponding with the claimed “stanchion;” and,
one of said insertion groove (e.g. annotated as 22B) of said separator (e.g. annotated as 2A) corresponding with the claimed “cupped portion” (claim 14) and “fastener” (claim 15).
(e.g. supra), reading on “a stanchion attached to the crossmember beam” (claim 13); “the first lateral edge flange of the second thermal barrier panel includes a cupped portion that is configured to engage the stanchion” (claim 14); and, “the first thermal barrier panel is secured to the stanchion by a fastener” (claim 15).
Regarding claims 19-20, Okada as modified teaches the power supply device of claim 11, wherein said separators including said insulating rib part of said separator may be composed of said mica (e.g. supra), reading on “the first thermal barrier panel and the second thermal barrier panel each include a flame resistant and heat insulation material” (claim 19) and “the flame resistant and heat insulation material includes mica, aerogel materials, and/or refractory ceramic fibers” (claim 20).
Still regarding claims 1-4 and 9-10, Okada and Turpin are applied as provided supra.
Art of Record
Claims 5-8 and 16-18 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed traction battery pack of claims 1 or 10, wherein said traction battery pack comprises the claimed first and second thermal barrier panels, wherein the first thermal barrier panel at least partially overlaps the second thermal barrier panel of claims 1 and 10 and further includes the specifically claimed components in the specifically claimed arrangements of dependent claims 5 (including those of intervening claims 3-4), 7 (including those of intervening claim 3), and 16, from which the other claims depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baseri et al (US 2023/0016266);
Hehne et al (US 2023/0017567);
Wang et al (US 2019/0305277);
Fees et al (US 2018/0105062);
Kwon et al (US 2017/0025645);
Subramanian et al (US 2016/0118701);
Rawlinson et al (US 2016/0093931); and,
Biskup et al (US 2016/0093930).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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 at (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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723