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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qu et al. (CN 111430621 A) (refer to translation as provided).
Regarding claim 1, Qu discloses a battery (battery pack, fig. 10), comprising:
at least four battery cells (more than 4 battery cells shown in fig. 10-11), wherein at least two of the battery cells(203) are arranged in a battery row (figure 10) along a length direction of the battery cells (see figure 10), and
at least two of the battery cells (203) are arranged in a battery column (see fig. 11) along a width direction of the battery cells (203); and
a blocking member (filler between the gaps of battery cells 203, see page 5 of translation),
wherein the blocking member (filler) is placed in a first gap (mounting space 205, see fig. 8) created by two adjacent battery rows, and the blocking member (filler) is configured to block adhesive (coating adhesive that is between the battery cell 203 and upper cover plate 201) on a bottom surface of the battery cell (203) from spreading towards an end cover direction of the battery cell (since the upper surface of the battery core 203 is glued to the upper cover 201, and the lower surface of the battery core 203 is connected to the support plate 202 by glue, the filler can prevent the glue from flowing or overflowing).
Regarding claim 10, Qu discloses an electric device (such as vehicle) comprising the battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the battery is configured to supply electric energy (see Abstract).
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.
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 2-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu as applied to above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 208 955 062 U) (refer to translation).
Regarding claim 2, Qu does not disclose the blocking member comprises: a blocking portion, wherein the blocking portion is provided at an end of the blocking member close to the bottom surface of the battery cell, and the blocking portion is configured to block the adhesive on the bottom surface of the battery cell from spreading towards the end cover direction of the battery cell; and a fixing portion, wherein the fixing portion is provided at another end of the blocking member, and the fixing portion is configured to connect to a lengthwise side of the battery cell.
Yang discloses a blocking member (cushion pad 5) (see figures 1-6) between two adjacent battery cells (1) (see fig. 1). Qu further discloses that blocking member (5) comprises: a blocking portion (cut out 52, see fig. 3)), wherein the blocking portion (52) is provided at an end of the blocking member (5) close to the bottom surface of the battery cell, and the blocking portion (52) is configured to block the adhesive on the bottom surface of the battery cell from spreading towards the end cover direction of the battery cell (The portion of the thermal conductive adhesive 4 that is extruded by the respective batteries 1 will overflow from the side of the housing 12 of the battery 1 into the recess 52 of the corresponding cushion 5, thereby preventing the thermal conductive adhesive 4 from overflowing to the upper cover 2 and the lower portion); and a fixing portion (51), wherein the fixing portion is provided at another end of the blocking member (5), and the fixing portion is configured to connect to a lengthwise side of the battery cell (1) (see fig. 2/3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the blocking member of Yang in the battery of Qu such that sealing performance of the battery module improved (see Abstract of Yang).
Regarding claim 3, Qu as modified by Yang further discloses that the blocking portion (5) comprises an extension portion (53), the extension portion being located in a second gap created by two adjacent battery columns (see fig. 1 of Yang) and extending along a height direction of the battery cell away from the fixing portion (51) (see figures 1-3 of Yang).
Regarding claim 4, Qu as modified by Yang further discloses that the blocking portion (5) comprises an extension portion (53), the extension portion being located in a second gap created by two adjacent battery columns (see fig. 1 of Yang) and extending along a width direction of the battery cell away from the fixing portion (51) (see figures 1-3 of Yang).
Regarding claim 5, Qu further discloses that the battery row comprises n battery cells, and the blocking portion comprises m extension portions, wherein m is 1 (see figures 1-3 of Yang).
Regarding claim 9, Qu as modified by Yang further discloses the blocking member is made of rubber (the cushion absorbs expansion force, and thus has elastic or rubbery properties).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu as applied to above.
Regarding claims 6-8, selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of the length(s) and width(s) as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights