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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 4 describes 16’ & 30’ which are not in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8 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 8 recites the limitation in lines 5-7 “which is configured to protrude away from the second outer side section in a normal direction thereof when the protective element is attached to the first battery cell module” is unclear. It is unclear which direction is the normal direction.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7-8 “which are angled relative each other” should read “which are angled relative to each other”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-7, 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Motokawa et al. (US 20160006006 A1, “Motokawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Motokawa discloses a battery cell module arrangement for an electric battery pack (see abstract “battery module” & “predetermined arrangement direction” & see [0004] “battery pack”) comprising a housing for storing a plurality of battery cell modules (see abstract “battery case for arranging and holding the plurality of batteries”), the battery cell module arrangement comprising: a first battery cell module which extends in a longitudinal direction, a width direction and a height direction, wherein the first battery cell module: is configured to hold and enclose at least one battery cell (see FIG. 7 “70 battery module” holds “batteries 5”), and comprises a first outer side section and a second outer side section which are angled relative each other and divided by a first outer edge (see annotated FIG. 1 describes “battery module 1”; see annotated “1” & “2” & “e” which describes first outer side section, second outer side section, and first outer edge), wherein the first outer edge substantially extends in one of the longitudinal direction, the width direction and the height direction (see FIG. 1 describes “e” annotated which extends in all directions), and wherein the first outer side section comprises a first outer wall segment which at least partly defines the first outer edge (see FIG. 1 & [0035] “cover part 18”), the battery cell module arrangement further comprising: a protective element for protecting the first battery cell module from contact with another element, such as another battery cell module, wherein the protective element: is configured to enclose a portion of the first outer edge (see FIG. 8 “cover members 103, 104, 105” & encloses a portion of the first outer edge), and comprises an attachment arrangement for attaching the protective element to the first battery cell module (see FIG. 8 & see [0067] “fixing members 106, 107 are connecting members that fix three battery blocks”; see [0068] “fastening members 108, 109”; see FIG. 8 describes “108”, “109”, “106”, “107” attach “104” to “102 battery blocks”), the attachment arrangement comprising a first protruding member and a second protruding member which are offset from each other so that a first recess is formed therebetween (see FIG. 7 describes “guide grooves 72” which reads on first and second protruding member & describes recess; see annotated FIG. 7 “1” & “2” & “r” which describes recess between the first and second protruding members), and wherein the first and second protruding members are configured so that the first outer wall segment can be received in the first recess, thereby attaching the protective element to the first battery cell module (see annotated FIG. 7 describes “72” receives “83 cover part” in the recess annotated “r”).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
465
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the protective element further comprises a third protruding member (see annotated FIG. 7 “3”) and a fourth protruding member which are offset from each other so that a second recess is formed therebetween (see annotated FIG. 7 “4” describes fourth protruding member & “r” which describes a second recess), wherein the third and fourth protruding members are configured to protrude away from the first outer edge and outside the second outer side section when the protective element is attached to the first battery cell module (see annotated FIG. 7 “4”).
PNG
media_image3.png
355
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 3 and further discloses further comprising a first protection layer element, such as a thermal protection layer element (see FIG. 2 & see [0032] “lids 10, 11 include plastic material that has heat resistance”), which is configured to be received in the second recess (see FIG. 4 describes “10” is received in the recess), thereby attaching the first protection layer element to the protective element (see Fig. 10 describes “103”, “104”, “105” & “lid 10” in FIG. 4), wherein the first protection layer element is configured to cover at least a portion of the second outer side section (see FIG. 2 “10” covers a portion of the outer side section of “5 batteries”).
Regarding claim 5, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 4 and further discloses wherein the battery cell module arrangement is configured so that a gap is formed between the second outer side section and the first protection layer element when the first protection layer element is received in the second recess (see [0042] “duct space 24” & see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 3 and further discloses wherein the third protruding member is configured to be provided closer to the second outer side section than the fourth protruding member when the protective element is attached to the first battery cell module, and wherein the third protruding member protrudes further outside the second outer side section than the fourth protruding member (see annotated FIG. 7 describes “3” is closer to the side than “4”).
PNG
media_image3.png
355
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the protective element is configured to extend along at least 10% of a length of the first outer edge (see annotated FIG. 1 “e”; see FIG. 10 “103” & see FIG. 8 describes “103” extends along the first outer edge).
Regarding claim 11, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the second outer side section comprises a second protection layer element, such as a second thermal protection layer element (see FIG. 8 & see [0066] “cover members 103, 104, 105 include metal material or plastic material that has a predetermined heat resistance”).
Regarding claim 13, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the protective element is an extruded profile with an extrusion direction which corresponds to a longitudinal extension of the first recess, which longitudinal extension corresponds to an extension of the first outer edge when the protective element is attached to the first battery cell module (see [0060] describes “case” & “formed into a predetermined shape by extrusion molding” which reads on extruded profile).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 13, “wherein the protective element is an extruded profile with an extrusion direction”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 14, Motokawa discloses an electric battery pack comprising a housing for storing a plurality of battery cell modules, wherein the electric battery pack comprises at least one battery cell module arrangement according to claim 1 (see abstract “battery pack module assembly” & “predetermined arrangement direction” & see [0004] “battery pack”; see abstract “battery case for arranging and holding the plurality of batteries”).
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.
Claims 2, 8-10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motokawa et al. (US 20160006006 A1, “Motokawa”) in view of Kruszelnicki (WO 2018232335 A1, “Kruszelnicki”).
Regarding claim 2, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first and second protruding members is elastically flexible so that a biasing force is generated between the respective first and second protruding member and the first outer wall segment when the first outer wall segment is received in the first recess.
Kruszelnicki teaches flexible protruding members (see FIG. 11 & “122” & see [0059] “the spacers 122 are made from various materials including, but not limited to, plastic” which reads on elastically flexible; see FIG. 13 “120” & “122”). Kruszelnicki teaches in [0059] “a pair of spacers 122 provide inner support for the battery cell stacks 124 as the battery cell stacks” & in [0072] describes “the assembly 120 provides lower complexity, fast assembly, and more efficient cooling/heating that results in better cycle life”.
Motokawa and Kruszelnicki are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery pack module assembly (see Kruszelnicki abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “spacers 122”, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see FIG. 11; see [0059]) into the battery cell module arrangement of Motokawa because doing so provides “inner support for the battery cell stacks 124 as the battery cell stacks”), as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0059]) & further doing so provides “more efficient cooling/heating that results in better cycle life”, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the protective element, as seen in a sectional plane which is perpendicular to a longitudinal extension of the first recess, which longitudinal extension corresponds to an extension of the first outer edge when the protective element is attached to the first battery cell module (see FIG. 8 “cover members 103, 104, 105”). Motokawa does not explicitly disclose comprises a first protective portion which is configured to protrude away from the second outer side section in a normal direction thereof when the protective element is attached to the first battery cell module.
Kruszelnicki teaches flexible protruding members (see FIG. 11 & “122” & see [0059] “the spacers 122 are made from various materials including, but not limited to, plastic” which reads on elastically flexible; see FIG. 13 “120” & “122”). Kruszelnicki teaches in [0059] “a pair of spacers 122 provide inner support for the battery cell stacks 124 as the battery cell stacks” & in [0072] describes “the assembly 120 provides lower complexity, fast assembly, and more efficient cooling/heating that results in better cycle life”. Kruszelnicki teaches in FIG. 11 “122” protrude away from the side section in a normal direction.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “spacers 122”, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see FIG. 11; see [0059]) into the battery cell module arrangement of Motokawa because doing so provides “inner support for the battery cell stacks 124 as the battery cell stacks”), as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0059]) & further doing so provides “more efficient cooling/heating that results in better cycle life”, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0072]).
Regarding claim 9, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first protective portion is elastically flexible in a direction which corresponds to the normal direction of the second outer side section, as seen when the protective element is attached to the first battery cell module.
Kruszelnicki teaches flexible protruding members (see FIG. 11 & “122” & see [0059] “the spacers 122 are made from various materials including, but not limited to, plastic” which reads on elastically flexible; see FIG. 13 “120” & “122”). Kruszelnicki teaches in [0059] “a pair of spacers 122 provide inner support for the battery cell stacks 124 as the battery cell stacks” & in [0072] describes “the assembly 120 provides lower complexity, fast assembly, and more efficient cooling/heating that results in better cycle life”. Kruszelnicki teaches in FIG. 11 “122” protrude away from the side section in a normal direction.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “spacers 122”, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see FIG. 11; see [0059]) into the battery cell module arrangement of Motokawa because doing so provides “inner support for the battery cell stacks 124 as the battery cell stacks”), as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0059]) & further doing so provides “more efficient cooling/heating that results in better cycle life”, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the first protective portion, as seen in the sectional plane which is perpendicular to the longitudinal extension of the first recess, is C-formed (see FIG. 8 describes “103” is C-formed).
Regarding claim 12, Motokawa discloses the battery cell module arrangement of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first battery cell module comprises a third outer side section which is provided on an opposing side of the first battery cell module with respect to the second outer side section (see FIG. 3 “34 connecting member”). Motokawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the third outer side section comprises a cooling plate element for cooling the first battery cell module during use.
Kruszelnicki teaches in FIG. 19 “134 battery cells” & “128 cooling coil” & see [0066] “The number of cooling channels 136 of a particular cooling coil 128 can vary depending on the design requirements of that particular battery pack module assembly 120”. Kruszelnicki teaches in [0066] “to provide uniform cooling throughout the assembly” & “the coolant is used to remove the heat generated by the battery cells 134 during charge and discharge”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate cooling coil 128, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see FIG. 19) into the battery cell module arrangement of Motokawa because doing so “provide[s] uniform cooling throughout the assembly”, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0066]) and further doing so “remove[s] the heat generated by the battery cells 134 during charge and discharge”, as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0066]).
Regarding claim 15, Motokawa discloses the electric battery pack of claim 14 (see abstract), but does not explicitly disclose a vehicle.
Kruszelnicki teaches a vehicle (see [0002] “battery pack module for an electric vehicle”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a battery pack into a vehicle as suggested by Kruszelnicki (see [0002]) because a skilled artisan would recognize doing so provides power to the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 06/08/2026
Prosecution Insights