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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings received on November 30, 2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: using the term “bracket” inconsistent with the definition of bracket.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following special definition of “several”, as set forth in the disclosure is applied: “In the description of the present application, “several” means at least two, such as two, three, etc., unless otherwise expressly and specifically defined” (para 0094).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 6-12 objected to because of the following informalities: not having a space between the number(s) and units (mm) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: not having “of the buffer components” after “a corresponding buffer component” (line 3) (to drawn back to what is given antecedent basis). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “bracket” in claim 1, 4, 7-12 is used by the claim to mean “plate,” while the accepted meaning is “an overhanging member that projects from a structure (such as a wall) and is designed to support a vertical load or to strengthen an angle.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Since claims 2-16 are dependent upon at least one of claims 1, 4, and 7-12, they are rejected for the same reason. (Note: Claim interpretation is taken consistent with the specification.)
Claim 4 recites “the battery cell module” (line 2, 3 (two times)) (singular). However, claim 1 sets forth antecedent basis for several battery cell modules (lines 1-2) (plural). Thus, it is unclear what “the battery cell module” refers to rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claims 5, 6, 10-14 are dependent upon claim 4, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites “the battery cell module” (line 2) (singular). However, claim 1 sets forth antecedent basis for several battery cell modules (lines 1-2) (plural). Thus, it is unclear what “the battery cell module” refers to rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claim 11 is dependent upon claim 5, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites “the buffer component” (line 2) (singular). However, claim 4 sets forth antecedent basis for buffer components (lines 1-2) (plural). Thus, it is unclear what “the buffer component” refers to rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claim 11 is dependent upon claim 5, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 6 recites “the buffer component” (line 1) (singular). However, claim 4 sets forth antecedent basis for buffer components (lines 1-2) (plural). Thus, it is unclear what “the buffer component” refers to rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. Since claim 12 is dependent upon claim 6, it is rejected for the same reason
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0080788 (Lee et al.).
As to claim 1, Lee et al. teach a battery cell assembly, comprising: a bracket (rigid plate [260]) and several battery cell modules [120] electrically connected with each other (para 0010), wherein the bracket [260] is arranged between two adjacent battery cell modules (figs. 1, 3B), each of the several battery cell modules comprises a plurality of single battery cells (cell [122]) arranged side by side, and the plurality of single batteries is electrically connected with each other (para 0058).
As to claim 7, Lee et al. teach the bracket is an aluminum bracket; and/or an interior of the bracket is a hollow structure; and/or a thickness of the bracket is 5 mm to 8 mm (hollow structure seen in fig. [4] with nut position [268], as well as below with areas aligned with first mounting structure [220]) (para 0051, 0053).
As to claim 16, Lee et al. teach a battery pack, comprising a box body (as seen in figs. 2A, 2B; having top cover [140], bottom cover and end plates [180] as well as side walls seen, where second mounting structure [240] is seen (para 0042-0044) and the battery cell assembly according to claim 1 (see the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake), the battery cell assembly being located inside the box body.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2020/0091571 (Burgers et al.).
As to claim 2, Lee et al. teach that the height of the bracket [260] is lower than the height of a single battery [122] (fig. 2C).
Lee et al. do not teach a height of the bracket is 7mm to 10mm lower than a height of the single battery cell; the height of the bracket is 133mm to 140mm (as Lee et al. do not provide measurements of their system).
However, Burgers et al. teaches that battery modules (with the individual cells) are typically 100-200 mm (para 0012). Combining the height of a module being 100-200 mm with the system of Lee et al. would yield the predictable result of providing a battery module, as each element (height and cell assembly structure) would perform the same function as it does separately (operable height, operable cell assembly). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine the height of the module being 100-200 mm with the assembly of Lee, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a battery module, as each element (height and cell assembly structure) would perform the same function as it does separately (operable height, operable cell assembly). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). Note: Although, only a general height of the module has been rendered obvious, this height would render the claimed invention obvious, as a single cell is approximately the same height as the module, as seen in fig. 2C of Lee et al., such that an overlapping range would be achieved by the teaching rendered obvious. Furthermore, regarding the amount shorter that the bracket is, the claim limitation is drawn to changes in size/proportion (as related to the height of a cell), which has been held to be obvious by the Office: “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.” See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
As to claim 8, Lee et al. teach the bracket is an aluminum bracket; and/or an interior of the bracket is a hollow structure; and/or a thickness of the bracket is 5 mm to 8 mm (hollow structure seen in fig. [4] with nut position [268], as well as below with areas aligned with first mounting structure [220]) (para 0051, 0053).
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO 2020/140334/2022/0085448 (Li et al.) (note: the US document is relied upon as the English translation for the WO document, as they both pertain to the same PCT; both are applicable with different dates).
As to claim 3, Lee et al. teach a protective frame wrapped around outer sides of the several battery cell modules (as seen in figs. 2A, 2B; having top cover [140], bottom cover and end plates [180] as well as side walls seen, where second mounting structure [240] is seen (para 0042-0044).
Lee et al. do not teach an inner wall of the protective frame is bonded with the several battery cell modules by an adhesive.
However, Li et al. teach an inner wall of a protective frame is bonded with the several battery cell modules by an adhesive (figs. 1-3, 9-10; para 0083). The motivation for having an inner wall of the protective frame is bonded with the several battery cell modules by an adhesive is to act as a structural portion of the assembly (structural adhesive) (para 0083). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have an inner wall of the protective frame is bonded with the several battery cell modules by an adhesive is to act as a structural portion of the assembly (structural adhesive).
As to claim 9, Lee et al. teach the bracket is an aluminum bracket; and/or an interior of the bracket is a hollow structure; and/or a thickness of the bracket is 5 mm to 8 mm (hollow structure seen in fig. [4] with nut position [268], as well as below with areas aligned with first mounting structure [220]) (para 0051, 0053).
Claim(s) 4-5, 10-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in view of US 2023/00335842 (Kim et al.) and WO 2020/190062/US 2022/140428 (Chi et al.) (note: the US document is relied upon as the English translation for the WO document, as they both pertain to the same PCT; both are applicable with different dates).
As to claim 4, Lee et al. teach buffer components (pads [124]), wherein between two adjacent single battery cells (fig. 2C; para 0053).
Lee et al. do not teach the buffer components are (a) arranged between the battery cell module and the bracket, and (b) between the battery cell module and the protective frame.
With respect to (a): Kim et al. teach of the buffer components (compression pads [340]) are arranged between the battery cell module [200a] and the bracket (portion between the sub-unit battery cell stacks [200a] made of the bottom part [320a] that projects upwards) (figs. 5, 8; para 0055). The motivation for having the buffer components (compression pads [340]) are arranged between the battery cell module [200a] and the bracket (portion between the sub-unit battery cell stacks [200a] made of the bottom part [320a] that projects upwards) is to absorb swelling of the left and right outermost battery cells (para 0055).Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the buffer components between the battery cell module and the bracket in order to absorb swelling of the left and right outermost battery cells.
With respect to (b): Chi et al. teach the buffer components (buffer pad [50]) are between the battery cell module [10] and the protective frame [30] (figs. 8-9; para 0060). The motivation for having the buffer components (buffer pad [50]) are between the battery cell module [10] and the protective frame [30] is to protect the battery module from impact as well as restrain the battery module to keep it in place (para 0064). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the buffer components between the battery cell module and the protective frame to protect the battery module from impact as well as restrain the battery module to keep it in place.
As to claim 5, although the combination does not teach a compression distance of the buffer component is greater than an expansion distance of the battery cell module. However, such a limitation would be rendered obvious in light of Kim et al. (full details of the combination in the rejection to claim 4, incorporated herein but not reiterated for brevity’s sake). Specifically, Kim et al. teaches that the compression pads (buffer component) is present to absorb the generation of the swelling of the left and right outmost battery cells of the battery stack (para 0055). At the very least, this teaching renders obvious that the compression pads absorb the expansion distance of the battery cell module, which is close to being greater than an expansion distance of the battery cell module. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 10, Lee et al. teach the bracket is an aluminum bracket; and/or an interior of the bracket is a hollow structure; and/or a thickness of the bracket is 5 mm to 8 mm (hollow structure seen in fig. [4] with nut position [268], as well as below with areas aligned with first mounting structure [220]) (para 0051, 0053).
As to claim 11, Lee et al. teach the bracket is an aluminum bracket; and/or an interior of the bracket is a hollow structure; and/or a thickness of the bracket is 5 mm to 8 mm (hollow structure seen in fig. [4] with nut position [268], as well as below with areas aligned with first mounting structure [220]) (para 0051, 0053).
As to claim 13, Lee et al. teach the protective frame comprises modules (as seen in figs. 2A, 2B; having top cover [140], bottom cover and end plates [180] as well as side walls seen, where second mounting structure [240] is seen (para 0042-0044)) a plurality of end plates [180] (on two opposing sides, only labeled on one side of fig. 1) connected with each other (via the top cover [140]), and a surface of each of the plurality of end plates facing a corresponding buffer component is provided with a reinforcing rib (seen via the pattern of the end plate [180]) (fig. 1).
As to claim 14, Lee et al. teach the end plate [180] is further provided with an open pore (that allows for bolts [182] to fit through) (fig. 1; para 0043).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Burgers et al., as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Li et al., as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Kim et al. and Chi et al., as applied to claims 4-5, further in view of US 2021/0126317 (Wang et al.). As to claim 6, Lee et al. do not teach the buffer component is a foam, and a thickness of the foam is 1.5 mm to 3 mm.
However, Wang et al. teach of a buffer component (body [100]) made of foam that is 0.5- 20 mm thick (overlaps claimed range, thus render it obvious), which relieves expansive force during work of a battery module (para 0006, 0032, 0054, 0058-0059, 0069-0070). The motivation for having a buffer component (body [100]) made of foam that is 0.5- 20 mm thick (overlaps claimed range, thus render it obvious) is to relieve expansive force during work of a battery module (para 0006, 0032, 0054, 0058-0059, 0069-0070).Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a buffer component made of foam, and with a thickness of the foam 0.5-20 mm in order to relieve expansive force during work of a battery module.
As to claim 12, Lee et al. teach the bracket is an aluminum bracket; and/or an interior of the bracket is a hollow structure; and/or a thickness of the bracket is 5 mm to 8 mm (hollow structure seen in fig. [4] with nut position [268], as well as below with areas aligned with first mounting structure [220]) (para 0051, 0053).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2009/0325060 (Komaki et al.).
As to claim 15, Lee et al. teach the plurality of single battery cells is connected to each other in series (para 0058).
Lee et al. do not teach that the series connection is done through a lead row, and the several battery cell modules are connected to each other in series through the lead row.
As to claim 15, Komaki et al. teach series connection is done through a lead row (via lead lines [7] and safety unit [11]), and the several battery cell modules (battery units [10]) are connected to each other in series through the lead row (lead lines [7] and safety unit [11]) (figs. 4-6, 8; para 0030). The combination of having a series connection done through a lead row (via lead lines [7] and safety unit [11]), and the several battery cell modules (battery units [10]) are connected to each other in series through the lead row (lead lines [7] and safety unit [11]) with the system of Lee et al. (connection not clearly shown) would yield the predictable result of providing a properly electrically connected battery (as each element – connection and battery system – would function the same as it does separately). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the series connection done through a lead row, and the several battery cell modules are connected to each other in series through the lead row, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a properly electrically connected battery (as each element – connection and battery system – would function the same as it does separately). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights