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 .
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 4 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.
The term “on top” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “on top” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 4 recites "a finishing bolt inserted from an upper end of a through-pipe provided on top," it is unclear as to what the finishing bolt is provided on top of. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets as a finishing bolt provided on the uppermost part of the engaging member.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thurmeier (DE 102017211367 A1) wherein an English translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Thurmeier teaches in figure 2 a battery B, and figures 1-5 show battery modules 1 (corresponding to the claimed battery cases) arranged in the vehicle’s vertical direction and each battery module is formed by a multitude of battery cells (corresponding to the claimed battery module) [0023] which corresponds to the claimed stackable battery comprising a plurality of battery cases, each comprising a battery module therein, wherein battery cases are configured to be stacked on one another in a height direction of a vehicle;
PNG
media_image1.png
825
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 shows a sleeve 36 (which corresponds to one through pipe) which penetrates the respective battery module 1 extending upwards towards the battery B [0037] and figure 5 shows a continuous channel 27 (which corresponds to a second through pipe, making a plurality) that connects the interior of the respective battery cases 8 to each other [0033] which corresponds to the claimed plurality of through-pipes provided in each battery case and configured to pass through the battery cases in a vertical direction, wherein the plurality of battery through-pipes is provided in each battery case and arranged together in the vertical direction;
Inside the sleeve 36 runs an invisible screw element which is firmly connected to the sleeve 36 which corresponds to the claimed at least one support member configured to pass through a corresponding through-pipe among the plurality of through-pipes in the vertical direction and configured to support an upper battery case among the plurality of battery cases.
Regarding claim 9, Thurmeier teaches figures 4-5 (see annotated figures below) which show a plurality of battery housings 8 stacked in a vertical direction which corresponds to the claimed plurality of battery cases comprising a first battery case positioned in a relatively lower portion and a second battery case positioned in a relatively upper portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
825
997
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20110151311 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a battery pack 30 that can be applied to an electric vehicle (Lee, [0105]) formed by vertically stacking battery modules 100 wherein each of the battery modules 100 is formed by stacking a plurality of single unit cells (Lee, [0003]) which corresponds to the claimed stackable battery comprising a plurality of battery cases, each comprising a battery module therein, wherein battery cases of the plurality of battery cases are configured to be stacked on one another in a height direction of a vehicle;
Figures 7-9 show a plurality of through holes 343a passing through a battery module 300 in a vertical direction (Lee, [0095]), and figure 8 shows a plurality of battery modules 300, each with a plurality of through holes 343a each extending in a vertical direction which correspond to the claimed plurality of through-pipes provided in each case in a vertical direction;
PNG
media_image3.png
468
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 9 shows fasteners 345 going through the through hole 343a in the vertical direction, figure 8 shows a plurality of fasteners 345 going through a plurality of through holes 343a to couple battery modules 300 to each other (Lee, [0095]) which corresponds to the claimed support member configured to pass through a corresponding through-pipe among the plurality of through pipes in the vertical direction and configured to support an upper battery case.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, figure 8 shows side binding members and front rear binding members vertically binding battery modules 300, the end face 350 being on both the front and rear side, which corresponds to the claimed side binding member attached to a side surface of the plurality of battery cases; and a front rear binding member attached to a front surface and a rear surface of the plurality of battery cases to bind the plurality of battery cases.
PNG
media_image4.png
771
779
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches figure 8 which shows a plurality of battery modules 300 stacked in a vertical direction which corresponds to the claimed plurality of battery cases comprising a first battery case positioned in a relatively lower portion and a second battery case positioned in a relatively upper portion.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurmeier (DE 102017211367 A1) and Kim (KR 20200033774 A) wherein an English translation is used and cited herein.
Thurmeier teaches the stackable battery of claim 1 and shows webs 25 separating battery modules 8 (figures 3, 11, [0045]), but is silent as to the through-pipe among the plurality of through-pipes being inserted into the member and provided in a corresponding battery case among the plurality of battery cases. However, Kim teaches an internal protruding frame with a mounting coupling hole 113.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add a mounting coupling hole to the webs 25 of Thurmeier to allow for securing the vehicle battery case to the support body as taught by Kim [0335].
PNG
media_image5.png
377
693
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
627
623
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurmeier (DE 102017211367 A1) and Shin (US 20220094006 A1).
Thurmeier teaches the stackable battery of claim 1, but is silent as to the mounting portion for coupling a vehicle body with the battery case formed on an outer surface of a battery case provided at bottom among the plurality of battery cases. However, Shin teaches an outer side member 70 provided in the lower case 12 to couple to the vehicle body (Shin, [0053], [0063]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add an outer side member to couple the battery housings to the vehicle body as taught by Shin (Shin, [0053], [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art is considered to be Thurmeier (DE 102017211367 A1) and Ki (US 20210387583 A1).
Thurmeier teaches a battery B with a plurality of through-pipes and support members configured to pass through the through-pipes. Thurmeier neither teaches nor renders obvious the instantly claimed support member comprising a seating surface extending in a circumferential direction on which an upper end surface or a lower end surface of the through-pipe is seated.
Ki teaches in figures 3-4, a plurality of through-pipes 200 disposed between the upper case 130 and the lower case 120 [0059-0060], and a lower support member 310 which is disposed on a lower surface of the battery module.
While Ki teaches a support member, Ki neither teaches nor renders obvious the support member being configured to pass through a corresponding through-pipe.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art is considered to be Lee (US 20110151311 A1) and Kim (EP 2337112 A1).
Lee teaches a stackable battery of claim 6, but neither teaches nor renders obvious the first binding member having formed therein an inserting surface with a surface extending in a width direction of the battery case, the inserting surface inserted between adjacent battery cases among the plurality of battery cases, and a bent surface formed to be bent downward at an end of the inserting surface, the bent surface contacting a side surface of the battery case; and
a second binding member having a shape extending in the vertical direction and having a surface surrounding a bent surface on a side surface of the first binding member and another surface contacting a side surface of the battery case positioned on the insertion surface.
Kim-112 teaches a support bracket 420 which has a bent surface that is inserted between battery modules but is silent as to a binding member extending in the vertical direction having a surface surrounding the first binding member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M CLEVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3156. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs | 9:00am-4:00pm.
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, 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights