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: 32A. 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 Objections
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a protuberance that protrudes toward the stack, when the stack is moved in a direction” should read --a protuberance that protrudes toward the stack, and when the stack is moved in a direction--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuett et al. (CN 108140911 A), hereinafter “Schuett”, in view of Ishibashi et al. (US 20200099027 A1), hereinafter “Ishibashi”, as cited in the IDS dated 10/19/2023, and Shimizu et al. (US 20140023893 A1), herein after “Shimizu”, as cited in the IDS dated 12/31/2024, wherein an English machine translation of Schuett is cited.
Regarding claim 1, Schuett teaches battery modules composed of multiple battery cells (Schuett, [0017], lines 2-4) that may comprise prismatic cells that can be hardcase cells (corresponding to the instantly claimed housing with a prismatic chape) (Schuett, [0011], lines 1-6 & 11-12). Fig. 1 of Schuett shows battery cells arranged side by side in a first direction, wherein the tops of the battery cells correspond to the claimed reference plane (See modified Fig. 1 below). Note the limitation “for positioning the stack in the third direction” is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II). Schuett teaches side by side battery cells that can define a reference plane coincident with the top surface of the aligned cells, and is thus considered capable of the same uses as recited.
Further regarding claim 1, Schuett also teaches a lower mounting grid that can cover bottom surfaces (corresponding to the claimed cover member being provided to cover the stack from a side opposite to the electrode terminal) and may comprise plastic (corresponding to the claimed insulating property) (Schuett, [0098], lines 11-14; [0025], line 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schuett does not teach a restraint member and a biasing portion. Ishibashi teaches a pair of binding bars 4 disposed along a side surface of a battery stack body 2 (corresponding to the claimed restraint member) (Ishibashi, [0048]). Shimizu teaches a case body 16 (corresponding to the claimed cover member) comprising a plurality of second pressure springs 42 (corresponding to the claimed biasing portion) which individually presses the respective bottom surfaces of the battery cells 14 (corresponding to the biasing portion biases the stack in a direction away from the cover member and against the reference plane) (Shimizu, [0043], lines 1-4; Figs. 3-6 & 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Ishibashi's binding bars to the battery module of Schuett in order to bind the battery stack body (Ishibashi, [0037], line 10), and to add Shimizu’s pressure springs to the lower mounting grid of Schuett in order to press and position each of the secondary battery cells (Shimizu, [0023], lines 7-12).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16, Ishibashi teaches a binding bar 4 comprising bent portions 44 that support a bottom surface of the battery stack body 2 (corresponding to the claimed facing portion that faces the stack from a side opposite to the cover member) (Ishibashi, [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Ishibashi's binding bars to the battery module of Schuett and Shimizu in order to bind the battery stack body (Ishibashi, [0037], line 10).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, Schuett teaches a battery pack system housing 30 comprising positioning protrusions 31a, 31b, 31c for positioning a battery 1 (corresponding to the claimed protuberances) (Schuett, [0166], lines 1-5; See modified Fig. 8 below). Furthermore, Schuett teaches that the position protrusions 31a, 31b, and 31c serve as lateral and/or vertical stops for the batteries 1 (corresponding to the claimed protuberance brought into abutment with the stack) (Schuett, [0182], lines 1-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
366
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5-8, Shimizu teaches a case body 16 comprising a plurality of second pressure springs 42 (corresponding to the biasing portion including a plate spring) (Shimizu, [0043], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Shimizu’s pressure springs to the lower mounting grid of Schuett and Ishibashi in order to press and position each of the secondary battery cells (Shimizu, [0023], lines 7-12).
Regarding claims 9-12, Shimizu teaches a case body 16 comprising multiple second pressure springs 42 arranged bilaterally and symmetrically, with respect to the central axis C of the bottom wall 22 (Shimizu, [0045], lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Shimizu’s symmetrical pressure springs to the lower mounting grid of Schuett and Ishibashi in order to press the bottom surface of the battery cells equally against the inner surface of the top cover without inclination (Shimizu, [0046], lines 18-23).
Regarding claims 13-16, Fig. 9 of Shimizu shows an opening in the bottom wall 22 overlapping with the second pressure spring 24 (corresponding to the claimed through hole at a position overlapping with the biasing portion in the third direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Shimizu’s overlapping opening with a second pressure spring to the lower mounting grid of Schuett and Ishibashi in order to prevent a variation of the pressing force of the second pressure spring 42 (Shimizu, [0047], lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 17, Schuett teaches a battery pack system housing 30, wherein Fig. 8 shows the housing 30 around battery cells (corresponding to the claimed case accommodating and supporting the plurality of battery cells and forming a unit of battery cells) (Schuett, [0171], lines 10-11; See modified Fig. 8 above).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuett (CN 108140911 A), Ishibashi (US 20200099027 A1), and Shimizu (US 20140023893 A1), as applied to claims 1-17, and further in view of Son et al. (US 20160181604 A1), hereinafter “Son”.
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 8 of Schuett shows more than two batteries in a housing 30 (See modified Schuett Fig. 8 above). Schuett does not teach the battery cells having an output density of 8000 W/L or more. Son teaches lithium ion battery cells with up to 8800 W/L discharge power (Son, [0041], lines 1-5) which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 8000 W/L or more output density. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Son's battery cells for the battery cells of Schuett, Ishibashi, and Shimizu to manufacture lithium ion batteries with excellent discharge and charge power (Son, [0041], lines 1-5). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of discharge power within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
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, 13, 17, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 12, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/490,508, hereinafter referred to as “the 508 application“, in view of Shimizu (US 20140023893 A1).
Regarding the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the 508 application meets all the limitations of the instant claim 1, but does not teach a cover member including a biasing portion that biases the stack in a direction away from the cover member and that the biasing portion biases the stack to press the stack against a reference plane. Shimizu teaches a case body 16 (corresponding to the instantly claimed cover member) comprising a plurality of second pressure springs 42 (corresponding to the instantly claimed biasing portion) that individually press the bottom surfaces of the battery cells 14 (corresponding to the instantly claimed biasing portion biases the stack to press the stack against the reference plane) (Shimizu, [0043], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Shimizu’s case body to the battery module of the 508 application in order to press and position each of the battery cells (Shimizu, [0023], lines 7-12).
Regarding the instant claim 13, claim 4 of the 508 application teaches a biasing portion that biases the stack in a direction away from the cover member, the biasing portion being provided at an edge of the through hole (corresponding to the instantly claimed through hole at a position overlapping with the biasing portion).
Regarding the instant claims 17 and 18, claims 12 and 13 of the 508 application teach the same limitations as the instantly claims 17 and 18, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Peng et al. (US 20210296624 A1) teaches a battery module comprising a main plate with multiple limiters configured for the battery to abut on.
Vejalla et al. (CN 105584345 A) teaches a battery cell assembly included a heat exchanger supported by flexible elastic members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel Avina whose telephone number is (571)270-0429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/R.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1734 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights