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 .
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20150147599 A1) in view of Chen et al. (CN211828875U). Machine translation is being used for citation of the foreign reference mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 1: Lee discloses a battery pack comprising one or more battery cells including a plurality of electrode tabs, that the battery pack include a protective circuit module connected to the electrode tabs of the battery cells and that the protective tape covering the protective circuit module and the electrode tabs and that the protective tape may include a first protection layer positioned on the protective circuit module and a second protection layer positioned on the first protection layer (paragraph [0007], [0033]- [0034]). Lee further discloses groove in the protective tape and that the protective tape has a porous structure for emitting heat generated from the protective circuit module (paragraph [0050]).
Lee does not disclose a plurality of uneven structures are formed on the top surface of the protective pad.
However, Chen discloses a packing plate for a battery component a packaging plate for a battery component, wherein the packaging plate includes a body for covering a circuit board and, the body includes a heat dissipation pad arranged below the heat dissipation groove (Abstract, paragraph [0007]). Chen further discloses a battery component including a circuit board, a packaging plate and at least one battery module, wherein the circuit board is arranged above the battery module and electrically connected to the battery module and the packaging plate covers the circuit board (paragraph [0007]).
Lee and Chen are analogous prior art because both are directed to battery pack and/or battery components structures.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s heat dissipation grooves and heat pad arrangement to Lee’s protective tape because would improve heat dissipation from the protective circuit module whole preserving the protective and insulating functions of the protective layer.
Regarding Claim 2: Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee does not disclose that the uneven structures are formed on the top surface of the protective pad in a stripe form.
Chen discloses a packaging plate for a battery component, wherein the packaging plate includes a body covering a circuit board and a heat dissipation groove (paragraph [0007]). In Figure 1 show an elongated heat dissipation grooves (21) on the packaging plate (2), which are stripe-like the plan view.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s uneven heat dissipation structures to the protective pad of Lee because Chen teaches an elongated heat dissipation groove on a packaging plate for a battery component and such stripe-shaped grooves provide predictable heat dissipating paths for releasing heat from the circuit elements while maintaining protection of the circuit board.
Regarding Claim 3: Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee does not disclose that the upper end of the protrusion portion is the top surface of the protective pad.
Chen discloses a packing plate for a battery component a packaging plate for a battery component, wherein the packaging plate includes a body for covering a circuit board and, the body includes a heat dissipation pad arranged below the heat dissipation groove (Abstract, paragraph [0007]). Chen’s Figure 1 show an elongated heat dissipation grooves (21) on the packaging plate (2), the material portions grooves are raised relative to the grooves.
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 protective tape of Lee to include the heat dissipation grooves as taught by Chen in order to improve heat dissipation from the protective circuit module.
Regarding Claim 4: : Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as in claim 4. Lee further discloses that the depths of the grooves may be equal to the height of the electrode tabs protruding from the protective circuit module (paragraph [0046]). Although, Lee does not use the term “concave portion”, Lee discloses grooves formed in the protective tape, which correspond to the claimed concave portions. Therefore, Lee teaches concave portions having the same depth as each other.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20150147599 A1) and Chen et al. (CN211828875U), as applied to claim 1-4 above, and further in view of Mashimo et al. (US20220271267 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee further discloses that the grooves are in the protective tape and that the depths of the grooves may be selected based on the heights of the corresponding electrode tabs protruding from the protective circuit module (paragraph [0010], [0046]).
Lee does not disclose that the first concave portion has a depth different form a second concave portion.
Mashimo discloses forming grooves of different depths in a secondary battery electrode and also discloses, forming a first groove extending in a first direction and forming a second groove extending in a different direction, wherein the second groove is made deeper than the first groove (Abstract, paragraph [0010], [0081], [0084])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the grooves in the protective tape with different depths as taught by Mashimo to optimize the groove structure. The use of grooves having different depths was a known structural variation in the secondary battery components and applying such kwon variation to the grooves would have been a predictable design modification.
Regarding Claim 6: Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee does not disclose that the uneven structures are arrange in a checker board pattern.
Mashimo discloses grooves extending in different directions and a groove in a lattice shape arrangement (paragraph [0006], [0084], [0144]). A lattice shape arrangement suggests arranging uneven structures in a repeated pattern across the surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the heat dissipation grooves of Lee in a checkerboard pattern in order to distribute heat dissipation structures across the surface if the protective pad and provide heat dissipation paths in multiple directions.
Regarding Claim 7: Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee does not disclose that the cross section of the protrusion portion is rectangular.
Chen discloses a packaging plate for a battery component, wherein the packaging plate includes a body covering a circuit board and a heat dissipation groove (paragraph [0007]). Chen’s Figure 1 show an elongated rectangular heat dissipation grooves (21) on the packaging plate (2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate rectangular heat dissipation groove of Chen with the protrusion portions of the protective pad of Lee would have been an obvious design choice for a groove based heat dissipation structure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20150147599 A1) as applied to claim 1-7 above, and further in view of McCutcheon et al (US6919504 B2).
Regarding Claim 8: : Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above in claim 1-7. Lee does not disclose that the cross section of the protrusion portion is circular.
McCutcheon discloses a flexible heat sink having a base and a plurality of protrusions extending away from the base. McCutcheon further discloses protrusion having a circular cross sectional geometry.
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 circular cross sectional geometry of McCutcheon into the protrusion portions of the protective pad of Lee as a predictable heat dissipation geometry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20150147599 A1) as applied to claim 1-7 above, and further in view of Kojo Yoshiaki (JP2019075358 A). Machine translation is being used for citation of the foreign reference mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 9: : Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above in claim 1-7. Lee does not disclose that the protective pad comprises a polyurethane material.
Kojo discloses a laminate battery including a circuit board having a protection circuit component and a compressively deformable cushioning material provided between the circuit board and a terrace portion of the battery. Kojo further discloses that the cushioning material has insulating properties and be a urethane foam including PORON® as an example (paragraph [0027])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the protective pad of Lee from polyurethane/urethane foam as taught by Kojo because Kojo teaches the urethane foam as an insulating material and would have been a routine material selection from known insulating and cushioning material suitable for battery circuit protection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20150147599 A1) as applied to claim 1-7 above, and further in view of Norton et al. (WO2012068732 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above in claim 1-7. Lee does not disclose that the protective pad comprises a rubber material.
Norton discloses a battery pack assembly including a plurality of battery cells and a soft and malleable pad, where in the soft and malleable pad is a rubber membrane (paragraph [0013], [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a protective pad of Lee from a rubber material as taught by Norton because rubber was known as a soft, malleable and protective material used in the battery pack assemblies. The substitution of rubber for the protective pad material would have been a predictable material selection to provide cushioning, sealing, protection and insulation in a battery pack environment.
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