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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 November 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 recites “batter” and should be corrected to “battery”
Claim 2 line 2 recites “are” and should be corrected to “is”
Claim 2 line 3 recites “are” and should be corrected to “is”
Claim 3 line 4 recites “are” and should be corrected to “is”
Claim 6 line 2 recites “comprise” and should be corrected to “comprises”
Claim 8 line 2 recites “comprise” and should be corrected to “comprises”
Claim 9 line 2 recites “comprise” and should be corrected to “comprises”
Claim 10 line 5 recites “include” and should be corrected to “includes”
Claim 11 line 2 recites “are” and should be corrected to “is”
Claim 12 line 6 recites “and disposed” and could be corrected to “disposed”
Claim 19 line 2 recites “comprise” and should be corrected to “comprises”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because line 3 recites “irregular-shaped region”. For the sake of compact prosecution this is interpreted to mean a non-flat-shaped region.
Claim 9 is objected to because lines 2-3 recite “a cooling flow path formed by combining a flat-shaped region of the body portion.” For the sake of compact prosecution this is interpreted to mean “a cooling flow path in the flat-shaped region of the body portion.”
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0026243 (Stojanovic et al., hereinafter, Stojanovic).
Regarding claim 1, Stojanovic teaches:
A battery module, comprising:
a module housing having an internal space (¶ 47, the module front plates 18, the module side plates 19, and the module top plates 14 constitute a self-supporting body of the battery submodule 100);
a plurality of cell assemblies disposed in the internal space, the plurality of cell assemblies including a plurality of battery cells (¶ 50, the battery module 200 includes two battery submodules 100 having a 4p3s configuration); and
a crossmember disposed between the plurality of cell assemblies (¶ 18, the crossbeam fits into the space between the side surfaces of the two battery submodules of the battery module),
wherein the crossmember includes a cooling flow path therein (Abstract, a crossbeam including a coolant duct).
Regarding claim 2, Stojanovic teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the plurality of battery cells are arranged in a first direction, and the plurality of battery cell assemblies are arranged in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction.
See Figs. 3 and 4, battery cells are stacking in a first direction, and there are two such stacks facing the first direction, next to each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first.
Regarding claim 3, Stojanovic teaches the battery module of claim 2, further comprising:
a plurality of end covers respectively closing the plurality of cell assemblies in the first direction (¶ 47, second side surfaces 17, corresponding to the module front plates 18).
wherein the plurality of end covers are coupled to the module housing and the crossmember (¶ 24, the mechanical and electrical connection between battery submodules within a single battery module is, in some embodiments, integrated into a single connection component…the connection component may further mechanically couple the battery module to a crossbeam).
Regarding claim 4, Stojanovic teaches the battery module of claim 3, wherein the crossmember comprises a body portion extending in the first direction and facing the plurality of cell assemblies in the second direction; and
an extension portion extending from both ends of the body portion in the second direction, and disposed to pass between the plurality of end covers.
See Fig. 5, the crossbeam 30 is inserted between the battery submodules and is parallel with them in the first direction, and faces the submodules in the second direction. There is also a section marked by a red arrow that shows that a portion of the crossbeam extends past the end covers.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Stojanovic teaches the battery module of claim 4, wherein the extension portion comprises a first extension portion coupled to the end cover (¶ 51, the crossbeam 30 is inserted into a space between the battery submodules 100 from the bottom side of the battery module 200 and is mechanically coupled to each of the battery submodules 100, also see above rejection for claim 3); and
a second extension portion disposed to be spaced apart from the first extension portion in a third direction, perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and protruding further in the first direction than the first extension portion.
Referring to Fig. 5 above, the red arrow points to the second extension portion that is protruding further in the first direction than the first extension portion, and is spaced apart from the first extension portion in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second direction because it is at the top of the end of the crossbeam.
Regarding claim 6, Stojanovic teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the plurality of battery cells comprises a prismatic case (¶ 48, each battery cell 10 is a prismatic cell); and
an electrode terminal protruding from at least one side of the case (¶ 48, the battery case is hermetically sealed and is provided with negative and positive electrode terminals 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 10, Stojanovic teaches:
A battery pack, comprising:
a plurality of battery modules (¶ 58, the battery system 400 shown in FIGS. 9 and 10, eighteen battery modules); and
a pack housing in which the plurality of battery modules are disposed (¶ 55, a battery system 400, according to an embodiment, including the housing as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8 and further including six crossbeams 30 with three battery modules 200 attached to each crossbeam 30),
wherein the plurality of battery modules include a module housing having an internal space (¶ 47, the module front plates 18, the module side plates 19, and the module top plates 14 constitute a self-supporting body of the battery submodule 100);
a plurality of cell assemblies disposed in the internal space, the plurality of cell assemblies including a plurality of battery cells arranged in a first direction (¶ 50, the battery module 200 includes two battery submodules 100 having a 4p3s configuration);
a crossmember disposed between the plurality of cell assemblies, the crossmember including a cooling flow path (¶ 18, the crossbeam fits into the space between the side surfaces of the two battery submodules of the battery module; Abstract, a crossbeam including a coolant duct); and
a plurality of end covers respectively closing the plurality of cell assemblies in the first direction (¶ 47, second side surfaces 17, corresponding to the module front plates 18),
wherein the crossmember has one side coupled to the plurality of end covers, and the other side coupled to the pack housing (¶ 53, a plurality of the crossbeams 30 are mechanically coupled to a housing for a battery system; ¶ 24, the mechanical and electrical connection between battery submodules within a single battery module is, in some embodiments, integrated into a single connection component…the connection component may further mechanically couple the battery module to a crossbeam).
Regarding claim 11, Stojanovic teaches the battery pack of claim 10, wherein the plurality of cell assemblies are arranged in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, and the crossmember is alternately disposed with the plurality of cell assemblies in the second direction (Fig. 9, the cells are arranged in a first direction, and the submodules are arranged in a direction parallel to the first direction, with crossbeams between the submodules also in the second direction).
Regarding claim 12, Stojanovic teaches the battery pack of claim 10, wherein the crossmember comprises a body portion extending in the first direction and facing the plurality of cell assemblies in the second direction; and
an extension portion extending from both ends of the body portion in the second direction, and disposed to pass between the plurality of end covers.
See Fig. 5, the crossbeam 30 is inserted between the battery submodules and is parallel with them in the first direction, and faces the submodules in the second direction. There is also a section marked by a red arrow that shows that a portion of the crossbeam extends past the end covers.
Regarding claim 13, Stojanovic teaches the battery pack of claim 12, wherein the extension portion comprises a first extension portion coupled to the end cover; and
a second extension portion disposed to be spaced apart from the first extension portion in a third direction, perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and protruding further in the first direction than the first extension portion,
wherein the second extension portion is coupled to the pack housing.
Referring to Fig. 5 above, the red arrow points to the second extension portion that is protruding further in the first direction than the first extension portion, and is spaced apart from the first extension portion in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second direction because it is at the top of the end of the crossbeam. And in Fig. 7 and in ¶ 53, the plurality of crossbeams 30 are mechanically coupled to a housing for battery system.
Regarding claim 14, Stojanovic teaches the battery pack of claim 13, wherein the housing comprises
a bottom frame on which the plurality of battery modules are mounted (¶ 53, the housing includes an aluminum ground plate 41 that is welded to a frame);
a plurality of first side frames disposed on the bottom frame to be spaced apart in the first direction (Fig. 7, ¶ 53, the frame includes two longitudinally extruded aluminum frame beams 42a, 42b); and
a plurality of second side frames disposed on the bottom frame to be spaced apart in the second direction (Fig. 7, ¶ 53, two extruded aluminum frame crossbeams 43a, 43b),
wherein the first side frame and the second side frame include a cooling flow path (¶ 54, the first longitudinal frame beam 42a includes an internal coolant feed line 45, and the second longitudinal frame beam 42b includes an internal coolant return line 46, corresponding to the first side frames. Fig. 7 shows the coolant ports 44 for piping coolant past the frame beam corresponding to the second side frame).
Regarding claim 15, Stojanovic teaches the battery pack of claim 14, wherein the second extension portion is disposed to overlap the first side frame in the first direction (Fig. 7 shows the crossbeams overlapped with the longitudinal frame beams 42a and 42b), and
a cooling flow path of the pack housing and a cooling flow path of the crossmember are connected to each other by the second extension portion (¶ 54, the crossbeams 30 include the internal coolant ducts 31 and are mechanically coupled to the longitudinal frame beams 42a, 42b such that the coolant ducts 31 are fluidly connected with the coolant feed and return lines 45, 46).
Regarding claim 16, Stojanovic teaches the battery pack of claim 15, wherein the second extension portion comprises a connection protrusion protruding toward the first side frame, and the first side frame comprises a groove in which the connection protrusion is accommodated (¶ 53 The crossbeams 30 are mounted into the frame using screws and/or snap fit attaching devices).
Regarding claim 19, Stojanovic teaches the battery pack of claim 10, wherein the plurality of battery cells comprise
a prismatic case (¶ 48, each battery cell 10 is a prismatic cell); and
an electrode terminal protruding from at least one side of the case (¶ 48, the battery case is hermetically sealed and is provided with negative and positive electrode terminals 11 and 12).
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0026243 (Stojanovic).
Regarding claims 7-9, Stojanovic teaches the battery module of claim 2, including a crossbeam with a flat-shaped body portion with a cooling flow path that extends in the first direction (Fig. 6, flat crossbeam extending in the first direction, ¶ 52 the crossbeam 30 includes two coolant ducts 31 that pass through an entire length of the crossbeam 30), an “irregular-shaped region” (interpreted to be not-flat-shaped) with extension portion extending from both ends of the body portion in the second direction (not-flat-shaped region visible in Fig. 5 above at the red arrow where there are two extension portions extending perpendicularly in the second direction from the sides of the crossbeam), but does not teach that this crossbeam is formed by combining the plurality of parts. Stojanovic instead teaches a single crossbeam with all of the features of the plurality of parts, and the court has held that if it were considered desirable for any reason, it would be obvious to make a part separable for that purpose. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0026243 (Stojanovic) in view of WO 2021221353 (Lee et al., hereinafter, Lee), US 12252000 used for translation.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Stojanovic teaches the battery pack of claim 10, but does not teach a separate support member disposed between the plurality of battery modules, wherein the support member is coupled to the pack housing on both sides in a longitudinal direction, or that the support member is disposed between the plurality of battery modules to be spaced in the second direction. In a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches a battery pack with cross beams 360 coupled to both ends of the right-side frame 340 and the left side frame 350 (Lee ¶ 30), and Fig. 2 of Lee shows the cross beams spaced in the second direction.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the battery pack of Stojanovic with the cross beams of Lee. Doing so would help protect the battery from external shocks (Lee ¶ 29).
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, 3-4, 6, 10, 14, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of the claims of copending Application No, 18/535,944 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0026243 (Stojanovic). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the instant application and claims 1 and 2 of the copending ‘944 application both disclose a battery module, module housing, plurality of cell assemblies including a plurality of battery cells, and a support member between the plurality of cell assemblies. While the copending ‘944 does not disclose that the support member includes a cooling flow path, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date to modify the support member in the copending ‘944 to include the cooling flow path of Stojanovic to improve the cooling properties of the battery module and achieve the claimed invention of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of the instant application and claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 of the copending ‘944 in view of Stojanovic both disclose the battery module wherein the cell assemblies have end covers at the ends of the cell assemblies, and wherein the end covers are coupled to the support member and module housing (though the end covers are not explicitly mentioned to be coupled to the module housing, copending ‘944 describes the module housing surrounding the cell assemblies with top and side covers because the ends are already covered. Otherwise, it would be obvious to have the end covers coupled to the housing in view of Stojanovic).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 of the instant application and claim 6 of the copending ‘944 in view of Stojanovic both disclose the support member comprising a body portion facing the cell assemblies in a second direction, and an extension portion extending past the end covers.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of the instant application and claim 3 of the copending ‘944 in view of Stojanovic both describe the battery cells to have a case and electrode terminals a side of the case. The copending ‘944 does not mention that the cells are prismatic but it would be obvious in view of Stojanovic to make the cells prismatic.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of the instant application and claim 11 of the copending ‘944 in view of Stojanovic both disclose a battery pack comprising a plurality of modules, a pack housing for accommodating modules, wherein the modules are made of a plurality of cell assemblies wherein the cell assemblies are made of a plurality of cells, a support member disposed between the plurality of cell assemblies, with the support member having a cooling flow path (modified by Stojanovic), and a plurality of end covers facing the cell assemblies, wherein the support member is coupled to the plurality of end covers and the pack housing.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of the instant application and claim 13 of the copending ‘944 in view of Stojanovic both disclose a pack housing with a bottom frame and side frames facing the batteries in a first direction. It would be obvious in view of Stojanovic to also include a second set of side frames facing the batteries in the second direction, and to also have cooling flow paths to run through the side frames to improve cooling.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of the instant application and claim 15 of the copending ‘944 in view of Stojanovic both disclose the extension portion of the support member having an insertion protrusion and the side frame having a groove that accommodates the insertion protrusion.
Claims 10, 14, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of the claims of copending Application No, 18/321,789 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0026243 (Stojanovic). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of the instant application and claim 7 of the copending ‘789 in view of Stojanovic both disclose a battery pack comprising a plurality of modules, a pack housing for accommodating modules, wherein the modules are made of a plurality of battery cell stacks, a support member disposed between the plurality of cell assemblies, with the support member having a cooling flow path (modified by Stojanovic), and a plurality of end covers facing the cell stacks, wherein the support member is coupled to the plurality of end covers and the pack housing (although the support member is not explicitly mentioned to be coupled to the end covers, the module of claim 5 has end covers coupled to the extension portion of the support member, and it would be obvious to modify the battery module of the battery pack to include the same. Otherwise, it would be obvious in view of Stojanovic).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of the instant application and claim 9 of the copending ‘789 in view of Stojanovic both disclose a pack housing with a lower frame and side frames facing the batteries in a second direction. It would be obvious in view of Stojanovic to also include a second set of side frames facing the batteries in the second direction, and to also have cooling flow paths to run through the side frames to improve cooling.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of the instant application and claim 12 of the copending ‘789 in view of Stojanovic both disclose the extension portion of the support member having an insertion protrusion and the side frame having a groove that accommodates the insertion protrusion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights