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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 40 of the specification, the language “Each of the insulating sheets 43 has electrical insulating properties and has a higher thermal conductivity than the portions of the case 22 other than the metal body 27 and air.” is unclear. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if the insulating body is meant to have a higher heat conductivity than both the metal body and air, or if the insulating body is meant to have a higher heat conductivity than the metal body but a lower heat conductivity than that of air.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the language “the insulating body has a higher heat conductivity than a part of the case other than the metal body and air.” is indefinite. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if the insulating body is meant to have a higher heat conductivity than both the metal body and air, or if the insulating body is meant to have a higher heat conductivity than the metal body but a lower heat conductivity than that of air.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner has chosen to interpret claim 6 to mean that the insulating body has a heat conductivity lower than that of the metal body but higher than that of air.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-20220294073-A1, Ojima.
All reference numerals are directed to Fig. 3, unless otherwise specified.
Regarding claim 1, Ojima teaches a battery module (30) comprising:
a battery group (group including all of 20) including a plurality of batteries (20);
an electric path (39) through which a current passes during each of charging and discharging the plurality of batteries (Paragraph 27, “39 electrically connected to the bus bars 32 (…) The terminal strips 39 are electrically connected to the aforementioned input/output terminals (not shown). The input/output terminals (not shown) are connected to electrical equipment such as the motor of the vehicle.”);
a case (30) in which the battery group is accommodated and including a metal body (41, 42, 32) having electric conductive properties (Paragraph 26, “the bus bar 32 is a conductive metal plate-like member”);
an insulating layer (Fig. 4, 52, 54) stacked on a surface of the metal body (surfaces of 41 and 42 facing same direction on the “z” axis from 32) on a side (Fig 4, 52b) where the battery group is located, the insulating layer having electric insulating properties (Paragraph 32);
and a conductive layer (Fig. 4, 53) stacked on a surface (Fig. 4, 52b) of the insulating layer on a side (Fig 4, surface of 54 facing 53a) where the battery group is located, the conductive layer (Fig. 4, 53) being electrically connected to any of the electric path (Paragraph 31) and a portion having electric conductive properties in the battery group (Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 2, Ojima teaches the insulating layer (Fig. 4, 52, 54) extends beyond a layer edge (Fig. 4, outside edges of 53) of the conductive layer (Fig. 4, 53) to an area (Fig 4, area beyond outside edges of 53) outside the layer edge of the conductive layer (53) in a direction (X-direction) intersecting a stacking direction (Z-direction) of the insulating layer and the conductive layer.
Regarding claim 6, Ojima teaches the insulating body (Fig. 4, 52) is preferably formed from polyimide resin (Paragraph 34). Ojima teaches a metal body (53) formed preferably of copper. Mengqi teaches that the heat conductivity of polyimide is 0.26 W/mK (Abstract). World Copper Factbook teaches that the heat conductivity of copper is 394 W/mK (Page 2). Lemmon et. al. teaches the thermal conductivity of air at 300 K is 26 mW/mK (Table V). Therefore, the insulating body has a higher heat conductivity than that of air and a lower heat conductivity than that of copper.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190157729-A1, Yamashita, in view of US-20220294073-A1, Ojima, with reference to Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity Equations for Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and Air, Lemmon, with reference to 8617 Technical Data Sheet, MG Chemicals, and with reference to Aluminum Alloys, Mondolfo.
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita teaches a battery module (20) comprising:
a battery group (20) including a plurality of batteries (21);
an electric path (“a bus bar”, Paragraph 45) through which a current passes during each of charging and discharging the plurality of batteries. While it is not explicitly stated that a current passes through the bus bar during charging and discharging of the batteries, this is the standard use of a bus bar and will be capable of this function;
a case (10) in which the battery group is accommodated and including a metal body (11) having electric conductive properties (Paragraph 45);
an insulating layer (70) stacked on a surface of the metal body on a side (23b) where the battery group is located, the insulating layer having electric insulating properties (“grease-form-silicon-based resin”, Paragraph 56). While Yamashita does not explicitly teach that the 70 has electric insulating properties, it does not form a part of an electric path based on its location, so it is not conductive and therefore insulative.
and a conductive layer (60) stacked on a surface of the insulating layer on a side where the battery group is located.
Yamashita does not teach the conductive layer being electrically connected to any of the electric path and a portion having electric conductive properties in the battery group.
However, Ojima teaches a battery module (30) comprising a plurality of battery cells (20) and bus bars (32) connecting terminals (8A and 8B) of each battery cell. While it is not explicitly stated that a current passes through the electric path formed by the bus bar during charging and discharging of the batteries, this is the standard use of a bus bar. Ojima teaches a wiring member (50) connected to the bus bar holder (33). Ojima teaches the wiring member comprises a conductive metal body (53a, 55) which is connected to the electric path of one of the bus bars (Paragraph 40).
Ojima teaches the purpose of this wiring member is to monitor the cell state to detect the voltage of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to add the wiring member of Ojima to the battery module of Yamashita by attaching a wiring member like 55 of Ojima to the insulating body of Yamashita in order to achieve the benefit of being able to monitor cell voltages.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of modified Yamashita have been explained above in the rejection of claim 1.
Modified Yamashita further teaches the insulating layer (Ojima, 52) extends beyond a layer edge of the conductive layer to an area outside the layer edge of the conductive layer in a direction intersecting a stacking direction of the insulating layer and the conductive layer (See Fig. 4 of Ojima).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Yamashita further teaches the bus bar is connected to the conductive layer (Ojima, 53a) (See Paragraph 41 of Ojima). This connection ultimately serves as a relay conductive portion of the conductive layer to the bus bar.
Regarding claim 4, Modified Yamashita further teaches each of the plurality of batteries includes a battery group (Yamashita, 20) and a metal-made outer container (Yamashita, 23) in which the battery group is accommodated, and the battery module further comprises a relay conductive portion (“by use of stud bolts and nuts”, See Yamashita Paragraph 53) that connects between the outer container of one of the plurality of batteries and the conductive layer (Ojima, 55) (See Paragraph 43 of Ojima).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Yamashita teaches an insulating body (Ojima, 52) arranged between the conductive layer (Ojima, 53a) and the battery group (Ojima, 20) and having electric insulating properties (See Paragraph 34 of Ojima).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Yamashita does not explicitly teach the insulating body (Yamashita, 70) has a higher heat conductivity than a part of the case other than the metal body (Yamashita, 11) and air. However, Modified Yamashita teaches the insulating body is made out of a heat conductive viscous material (Yamashita, 71) of a composition given in Paragraph 56 of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant would recognize that the material 71 is similar to that of MG Chemicals, which has a thermal conductivity of less than or equal to 1 W/mK. The thermal conductivity of air at 300K is 26.35 mW/mK (Lemmon). The thermal conductivity of aluminum is 237 W/mK (Mondolfo). Therefore, the heat conductivity of 71 is higher than that of air but lower than that of aluminum, which the metal body of Yamashita comprises (Yamashita, Paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Yamashita teaches each of the plurality of batteries includes an electrode group (Ojima, 8a and 8b) and a metal-made outer container (Yamashita, 10) in which the electrode group is accommodated,
a hole (Ojima, 33c) is formed in the insulating body (Ojima, 33), the hole penetrating the insulating body in a stacking direction of the insulating layer and the conductive layer (Ojima, 55) (Ojima, Paragraph 27),
and the battery module further comprises a relay conductive portion that is arranged in the hole of the insulating body and connects between the outer container of one of the plurality of batteries and the conductive layer (Ojima, 55) (See Paragraph 43 of Ojima).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Yamashita teaches a first insulating film (Ojima, 56) coating a surface of the conductive layer (Ojima, 55) on a side where the battery group is located, the first insulating film having electric insulating properties (See Paragraph 38 of Ojima).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Yamashita teaches each of the plurality of batteries includes an electrode group (Yamashita, 25 and 26) and a metal-made outer container (Yamashita, 23) in which the electrode group is accommodated, and the battery module further comprises a second insulating film (Yamashita, 31) that coats an outer surface of the outer container in each of the plurality of batteries, and the second insulating film has electric insulating properties (See Yamashita, Paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Yamashita teaches the wiring member (Ojima, 50) comprises a conductive layer (Ojima, 55) with a mesh shape when viewed from a stacking direction of the insulating layer (See Fig. 4 of Ojima) and the conductive layer. Ojima teaches that the mesh conductive layer’s purpose is to shield the conductive layer 53a from the effects of unwanted radiation (See Paragraph 39 of Ojima).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita teaches the conductive layer (Ojima, 53a) is electrically connected to the bus bar (Ojima, 32), therefore it must have the same potential as the bus bar. Modified Yamashita teaches the mesh conductive layer (Ojima, 55) is at a ground potential (Ojima, Paragraph 43). The mesh conductive layer serves as the metal body of claim 11.
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, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (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, 5, 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 9 of copending Application No. 17814050 (Reference 1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the claim mapping and reasons shown in the table below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Claim 1
Reference 1
A battery module comprising: a battery group including a plurality of batteries;
1. “a battery module”
“the battery module comprising: a battery group including a plurality of batteries”
an electric path through which a current passes during each of charging and discharging the plurality of batteries;
“an electrical connection path configured to electrically connect the metal plate to the base.”
Reference 1 does not claim a current passes through the electric path during each of charging and discharging the plurality of batteries, however, Reference 1 teaches that each of the terminals of each of the plurality of batteries are connected to power source and a load that charge and discharge the battery module (Specification, Page 21, line 21 through Page 22, line 7). Reference 1 also teaches that a GND-side path of a current path of an electric current is connected to the base 61 (Page 22, line 8 through Page 23, line 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a current passes through the electrical connection path during charging and discharging of the plurality of the batteries in view of the specification of Reference 1.
a case in which the battery group is accommodated and including a metal body having electric conductive properties;
1. “a case including a case peripheral wall which surrounds a housing space of the battery group and having an electrical insulating property;”
“a base made of a metal,”
While the metal plate of Reference 1 is not specified to have electric conductive properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that a metal plate would have electric conductive properties.
an insulating layer stacked on a surface of the metal body on a side where the battery group is located, the insulating layer having electric insulating properties;
9. “an insulating layer formed in the clearance between the metal plate and the base and having plasticity and an electrical insulating property.”
and a conductive layer stacked on a surface of the insulating layer on a side where the battery group is located, the conductive layer being electrically connected to any of the electric path and a portion having electric conductive properties in the battery group.
1. “a metal plate provided between the battery group and the base and forming a clearance between the metal plate and the base;”
1. “and an electrical connection path configured to electrically connect the metal plate to the base.”
Instant Claim 5
Reference 1
The battery module of claim 1, further comprising an insulating body arranged between the conductive layer and the battery group and having electric insulating properties.
1. “an insulator having plasticity and an electrical insulating property, sandwiched between the battery group and the metal plate, and configured to electrically insulate between the exterior container of each of the batteries and the metal plate;”
Instant Claim 6
Reference 1
The battery module of claim 5, wherein the insulating body has a higher heat conductivity than a part of the case other than the metal body and air.
2. “The battery module according to claim 1, wherein the insulator transmits, to the metal plate, heat transmitted from the battery group, and the insulator has a higher thermal conductivity than air and the case.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP-2014216113-A, which is useable for 102(a)(1) rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721