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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 10/18/2023, 6/12/2024, and 1/21/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Okada et al. US-20210288363-A1 (hereinafter “Okada”) in view of Kato et al. JP-2021182472-A (hereinafter “Kato”).
Regarding Claim 1, Okada discloses a battery module (battery assembly) 9 in Figs. 1-3 and 9 (see abstract and paragraph [0010]) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells 1 arranged side by side in a first direction, each of the plurality of battery cells having a prismatic shape (rectangular) in Figs. 1-3 and 9 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0038]-[0039]); and
a restraint member (bind bar) 5 that restrains the plurality of battery cells 1 in the first direction (battery assembly is maintained in a bound state) in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0002], [0010], [0038], [0045], [0056]-[0061]), wherein
the restraint member 5 includes a main body portion extending in the first direction and provided with an opening 5D in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0061]),
the opening has an edge,
the edge has
a first portion and a second portion each extending substantially straightly along the first direction,
a third portion and a fourth portion arranged side by side in the first direction and facing each other, and
a connection portion that connects each of the first portion and the second portion to each of the third portion and the fourth portion in Figs. 1 and 8 (see annotated Fig. 8 below, note that only one example connection portion is labeled) (see paragraphs [0056]-[0061]).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based on the teachings of Okada, a skilled artisan would be capable of designating wherein a first imaginary arc is defined with a first imaginary point as a center, the first imaginary arc including three points that are a center and both ends of the third portion in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the first imaginary point being located on the fourth portion side with respect to a first imaginary straight line that connects the both ends of the third portion in the first direction, and a second imaginary arc is defined with a second imaginary point as a center, the second imaginary arc including three points that are a center and both ends of the fourth portion in the second direction, the second imaginary point being located on the third portion side with respect to a second imaginary straight line that connects the both ends of the fourth portion in the first direction and wherein each of the first imaginary point and the second imaginary point is located outside the opening in order to appropriately define the shape and achieve a shape that fits the restraining member for the battery they are creating.
However, if Okada is found to be insufficient, in the same field of endeavor of battery restraint members (battery covers) (see paragraphs [0002] and [0006]-[0007]), Kato discloses controlling the relationships between various axes of symmetry, reinforcing parts, and recessed portions for the shape and design the battery cover can result in a highly rigid and lightweight battery cover (see paragraphs [0039]-[0054]). Kato also discloses ring shapes with appropriate design changes, such as changes to the bulges and symmetry, can achieve a highly rigid and lightweight battery cover in Figs. 15 and 17 (see paragraphs [0049], [0051], and [0053]), which a skilled artisan would recognize as advantageous qualities for a restraining member. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
So, a skilled artisan is capable of applying these teachings to Okada to achieve an opening having a first imaginary arc is defined with a first imaginary point as a center, the first imaginary arc including three points that are a center and both ends of the third portion in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the first imaginary point being located on the fourth portion side with respect to a first imaginary straight line that connects the both ends of the third portion in the first direction, and a second imaginary arc is defined with a second imaginary point as a center, the second imaginary arc including three points that are a center and both ends of the fourth portion in the second direction, the second imaginary point being located on the third portion side with respect to a second imaginary straight line that connects the both ends of the fourth portion in the first direction and wherein each of the first imaginary point and the second imaginary point is located outside the opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the restraining member of Okada wherein the claimed geometrical parameters are met, as disclosed by Kato, in order to achieve a highly rigid and lightweight battery cover.
Regarding Claims 3-4, modified Okada discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above). Okada further discloses wherein the opening has a substantially barrel shape in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0061]).
Regarding Claims 5-6, modified Okada discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above). Okada further discloses wherein the restraint member includes a flange portion 5A at each of both ends of the main body portion in the second direction, the flange portion protruding toward the plurality of battery cells 1 side along a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0002], [0010], [0038], [0045], and [0056]-[0061]).
Regarding Claims 7-8, modified Okada discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above). Okada further discloses wherein each of the third portion and the fourth portion is formed to have an arc shape in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0061]).
Regarding Claims 9-10, modified Okada discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above). Okada further discloses wherein each of the third portion and the fourth portion is formed to have a curved shape in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0061]).
Regarding Claims 11-12, modified Okada discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above). Okada further discloses wherein the connection portion has no angular portion in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0061]).
Regarding Claims 13-14, modified Okada a discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above). Okada further discloses wherein a plurality of the openings are provided side by side in the first direction in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0061]). The exact same shape is not shown side by side in Figs. 1 and 8 but a skilled artisan is capable of using the shape seen on the ends side by side along the whole of restraining member to ensure the proper cooling of the battery cells. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of Okada wherein a plurality of the openings are provided side by side in the first direction as a duplication of the same shaped opening to achieve appropriate cooling of the battery cells.
Regarding Claims 15-16, modified Okada discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above). Okada further discloses wherein the opening 5D is provided at a position corresponding to a position between the plurality of battery cells 1 (air blowing openings 5D provided so that cooling air can be blown into air paths 6 of battery assembly 9) in Figs. 1 and 8 (see paragraphs [0056]-[0061]).
Regarding Claims 17-18, modified Okada discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above). Okada further discloses the battery module further comprising a case that accommodates the plurality of battery cells 1, that supports the plurality of battery cells in at least the first direction, and that forms a unit including the plurality of battery cells 1 in Figs. 1-3 and 9 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0038]-[0039]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Omura, as applied to Claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Murakami et al. (hereinafter “Murakami”).
Regarding Claims 19-20, modified Okada discloses a battery module according to claims 1-2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above).
Okada is silent on wherein a direction of rolling of a material in the restraint member is along the second direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of rolling materials (see paragraph [0005]), Murakami discloses in the manufacturing technology of rolled steel sheets, it has been recognized that there is no difference in the mechanical properties of the steel sheet, such as strength, ductility, and toughness, whether it is bent parallel to or perpendicular to the rolling direction, even if it is bent parallel to the rolling direction (see paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery module of Okada and Kato wherein a direction of rolling of a material in the restraint member is along the second direction, as it is an engineering choice the skilled artisan can make as the direction does not change the mechanical properties of the steel sheet, such as strength, ductility, and toughness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.L.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights