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 1-6 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-192994, filed on December 01, 2022.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. (US20230108456) in view of Zeng et al. (US10826035) and Oguma et al. (JP2019188857A). Machine translation is being used for citation of the foreign reference mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 1: Karlsson discloses a power storage device comprising at least one power storage module including a power storage stack having a plurality of power storage cells arranged in a row direction and a pair of end plates disposed at opposite ends of the stack (Fig. 2, 5, 7, 8 & 10). Karlsson further discloses a frame structure arranged adjacent the power storage module and configured to support the battery module assembly (Fig. 1-3). Karlsson does not disclose a cross member arranged adjacent to the power storage module in an orthogonal direction and extending along the one direction and a connecting member connecting the frame to the cross member and connecting the frame to one of the pair of the end plates.
Zeng discloses a battery pack support structure including a cross member extending along the longitudinal direction of a battery pack and positioned adjacent the battery module (Fig. 4-10). Zeng further teaches connecting structures coupling frame components, battery support members, and cross members together through mechanical fastening arrangements (Fig. 4 & 5; col. 4, line 50-65)
Oguma further discloses a battery stacks positioned between structural members and a transmission member configured to transfer loads between structural members and battery stacks (Abstract, Claim 1, Fig. 1-4, paragraph [0019], [0020], [0022]- [0023])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery pack of Karlsson incorporate the transmission member of Oguma because Oguma teaches distributing the impact load among the adjacent battery stack while maintaining the structural rigidity of the battery assembly.
Regarding Claim 2: Karlsson discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above. Karlsson does not disclose a pair of power storage modules positioned on opposite sides of a cross member such that the cross member is sandwiched between in an orthogonal direction nor a connecting member connecting end plates of both power storage modules to the frame.
Oguma discloses a plurality of battery stacks arranged in a direction perpendicular to the frame member with a gap between the stacks (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karlsson’s battery pack arrangement with Oguma’s battery stacks arrangements because such configuration improves the structural support and force distribution while reducing localized stresses.
Regarding Claim 3: Karlsson discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above. Karlsson does not disclose a restraint band connected to the pair of end plates.
Zeng discloses a battery module in with retention members restrain a cell stack between opposite end structures. (col. 4, line 32-44)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zeng’s restraint mechanism to Karlsson’s battery pack to improve stack compression and dimensional stability during charging discharging and vibration conditions.
Regarding Claim 4: Karlsson discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above. Karlsson does not disclose a protrusion having a shape to protrude outwardly in the one direction from the plate body or the connecting member that connects the protrusion to the frame.
Zeng discloses a fixing frame structure including locking plate and extending portions identified as first end (31) and second end (32). (col. 4, lines 50-60)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the battery pack structure of Karlsson and Zeng’s fixing frame and extending portions because such structures provide a robust load path between the battery modules and the support members.
Regarding Claim 5: Karlsson discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above. Karlsson does not disclose the first arm, the second arm and the cross connecting portion.
Zeng discloses a connecting component including side plate, opposite side plate and bottom plate. (col. 5, line 31- 59)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the connecting components of Zeng in the battery assembly of Karlsson because Zeng teaches that such structure improves the load transfer and the assembly rigidity while providing multiple attachment points.
Regarding Claim 6: Karlsson discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above. Karlsson does not discloses a cross member having an upper surface formed to be flush with the frame and the cross connecting portion, the first arm and the second arm are formed in an identical plane.
Zeng discloses a connecting component including side plates and a bottom plate, as claim 5. Zeng further discloses that the bottom plate and associated structural portions are arranged in the same plane (col. 5, line 46- 50).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the upper surface of the cross member flush with the frame and to form the connecting portions within a common plane because doing so facilitates manufacturing, assembly and uniform load transfer. Such optimization constitutes a predictable design choice that would have been within the level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights