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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 132 and 131 have both been used to designate the first surface 131 in the FIG 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9 and 10 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a surface of the reinforcing member”. Claim 1 introduces that the reinforcing member has specifically a first surface and a second surface. It is not clear how the new “a surface” relates to the first surface or the second surface. Is this a third surface or can it be one or the other of the established surface? Thus the claim is considered indefinite. Claim 10 is indefinite because it depends from claim 9.
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 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by HE et al. (US 20220416343) in view of SAITO et al (US 20200185663).
Regarding claim 1, He’343 teaches:
Reinforcing member 202 ; Cell 203 [0067].
He’343 further teaches a different reinforcing member with a shape “[“ 209 , where the part “-“ is fixed to the bottom and top surfaces of the cell and the part “|” is fixed to the lateral surfaces of the cell (Fig 8) [0017-0019]. He’ 343 is silence about the outer casing and a cover plate welded to a top portion of the outer casing.
In the same field of endeavor, battery cell, SAITO further teaches a cell with a case 10 and a lid member 14 welded [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to protect the cell of a module with a case for security, thermal management or system assembly, to weld the top or lid to the case for improve the strength in the structure and getting less movement due to vibrations or bumps and to identify that the reinforcing member can be fixed to the cell or to the case if have one.
Regarding claim 17, He’343 teaches:
Fig 13 shows the battery pack comprising the cell.
Claim(s) 2 to 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by HE et al. (US 20220416343) and SAITO et al (US 20200185663) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of HE et al. (US 20220416346).
Regarding claim 2,
Electrode terminal (207)
HE’343 is silence about different position for the assembly or arrangement of the cell in view of the electrode terminal. FIG. 1 shows the battery pack comprising the cell with the electrode terminal in a thickness direction. SAITO call the terminal has an electrode assembly [0006].
In the same filed, battery cell, HE’346 further teaches that the selection to electrode assembly in the top is to facilitate the arrangement of the battery assembly 200 in the casing 100 [0152]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the position of the terminals depending on the assembly of cell wanted and its purpose. Placing the electrodes in the length or height direction will make the reinforcing member first and second surfaces being fixedly in a different place because it’s important to avoid any deformation or movement in the base selected to place the terminals due to their function; a reinforcing member in this area will help keep the stiffness.
Regarding claim 3, He’ 343 teaches:
Reinforcing member 202
He’343 further teaches two different shapes for the reinforcing member plate (FIG 8 and 9). This reinforcing member are plates that cover the entire stack cell. SAITO is silent about a reinforcing member. In the same field of endeavor, battery cell, He’ 346 teaches that the presence of the end plates, the side plates, the reinforcing beams, the fasteners, and other structural members causes the entire battery pack to have a large weight, and reduces the space utilization inside the battery pack, making the energy density fail to meet the user's requirements on the battery life of electric vehicles [0003]. Also, teaches that structural members for mounting and fixing the cells can be omitted in the battery module and the assembly process is simplified, but obtaining a low overall structural strength in the module [0004]. Reference He’343 and He‘346 show at least “C” or “L” embodiments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a different and more compact reinforcing member than the one of other battery module has because of their size and their weight. The geometry of the reinforcing member is chosen depending on the overall assembly of your module, that way it ensures it meets the basic mechanical properties (bending, torsion, or compression). The shape of the profile and its structural behavior are related. In the manufacturing of the modules, the reinforcing member is not required, but it is essential for the unit's stability. When placing the reinforcing member near where the terminals and the explosion-proof valve are, it's wise to consider not blocking or covering these parts.
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
Regarding claim 4, He’ 343 teaches:
Reinforcing member 202
The combination applied according to the claim 3 is silence about a ratio of a length of each reinforcing member used. However, He’346 teaches that the presence of different types of reinforcing makes the weight and size of the battery increase [0003]. Also, teaches that the mounting and fixing of the reinforcing can be omitted obtaining a simplify process but a low strength in the battery [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to sizing each of the select a reinforcing member to have a length no greater than the length of the cover plate since the length of the cover plate is the same as the cell to obtain predictable results, less weight in the battery pack, decrease in labor, material and other cost.
Regarding claim 6, He’343 teaches:
Three different structural reinforcing members plate 202, “L” shape and “[“ shape and the use of more than one plate in the embodiment (FIG. 6,8 and 9)
In the same field of endeavor, battery cell, He’346 teaches a reinforcing member in each individual cell units and different ways to arrange them (see FIG. 6 to 10) [0111-0125]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to identify that in a battery cell can have a plurality of reinforcing members that are physically separated from one another and to identify that they can be at intervals because adjacent reinforcing members are separated by intervening spaces.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by HE et al. (US 20220416343), SAITO et al (US 20200185663) and HE et al. (US 20220416346) as applied in claim 3 above, and further in view of MO (US 20220123382) and Schaumburg (4010044).
Regarding claim 5 and 7, He’343 teaches:
A reinforcing member plate with the shape “ [ “ (FIG 8).
He’343 further teaches that this reinforcing member have three surfaces 209, 211, 212; where the two part “- “ 211 and 212 face two opposite large surface of the cell (bottom and top). In the case of having an outer casing like SAITO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to identify that the reinforcing member is going to be on the surfaces of the outer casing and the lid.
The combination is silence about an explosion-proof valve on the cover plate, an escape groove and the width of the L-shaped reinforcing member close to the cover plates less or equal to (a-b)/2. MO teaches an explosion-proof valve 106 on the top of the cell. In the same field of endeavor, battery vent, Schaumburg teaches the important to leave a space in the top of the battery which permits the venting gases to escape to the atmosphere [Col 1, ln 55-59]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to leave a width between the reinforcing member where is the explosion-proof valve located to prevent interference with the equipment's ventilation due to the close presence of the reinforcing member first surface.
Claim(s) 8 to 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE et al. (US 20220416343), SAITO et al (US 20200185663) and HE et al. (US 20220416346) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MO (US 20220123382) and Schaumburg (4010044).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination as applied to claim 1 above is silent as to comprises a top patch or a groove.
MO further teaches a battery cell having a top patch 103.
In the same field of endeavor, battery vent, Schaumburg discloses a battery vent comprising a narrow passage so that the battery gases reach the vent and can escape, further teaches that the narrow passage between the first and second members may be created by at least one shallow groove, where the battery vent means can be any channel or opening which permits the venting gases to escape to the atmosphere [Col. 11, ln 55 -59]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to leave an area where the patch can deform or where the vent can open without interference from the reinforcing member. The groove prevents the reinforcement and the top patch from blocking the gases to escape, provide an escape route and get some relief from the internal pressure in the cell.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, He’343 teaches:
A structural adhesive is arranged between the structural reinforcing member and a first lateral surface of each cell in the cell sequence [0112].
SAITO further teaches the presence of an insulating film 30 in the cell. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teaches of He’343 and SAITO. By the use of an insulating layer surrounding the top of the cell where the electrode terminals are, it’s possible to prevent an accidental electrical contact between electrodes and other conductive structures. Since the reinforcing member is made of metal, they have one surface on the top of the cell and it’s necessary to find a way to attach them easily, using an insulating tape that provides both functions would be the most practical technic to use.
Claims 11 to 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE et al. (US 20220416343) and HE et al. (US 20220416346) further in view of SAITO et al (US 20200185663)
Regarding claim(s) 11,
Multiple cell 203, structural reinforcing member 202, structural reinforcing member with “[“ shape and a structural reinforcing member with “L” shape.
HE’343 further teaches two types of reinforcing member, where they called this part as a plate and one of them as the shape “[“. When this plate is used the “|” part is fixedly with the first lateral surfaces of the cells and the other two “-” parts of the “[”-shaped plate is respectively fixedly to the top surfaces of the cells and the bottom surfaces of the cells [0017-0019]. SAITO et al. discloses a cell with a case 10 and a lid member 14 welded [0013]. Further teaches a battery pack comprising the battery module (Fig 13). In the same field of endeavor, battery pack, HE’346 discloses another way to connect the reinforcing member to the cells, where the reinforcing member is provided between at least two adjacent battery assemblies [0037]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combinate the embodiments according to the reinforcing member selected to the invention and where to located the reinforcing and where to focus the strength.
Regarding claim 12, He’343 teaches:
Structural reinforcing member with “[“ shape and a structural reinforcing member with “L” shape.
He’343 disclose a structural reinforcing member with different shapes but is a plate covering all the cells. He’346 further illustrates the reinforcing members 300 being associated with individual battery cell 202. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a small and individual reinforcing member instead of a bigger plate due to the teaches provided on both references about the increment in weight and the reduction of the space inside the battery pack. By being small and individual provided more strength in the surfaces they are placed.
Regarding claim 13, He’343 teaches:
Multiples cell 203
He’343 further call this assembly like a stacking of cells [0157] and the electrode terminals 216 of the cells 203 can be connected in series or in parallel [0169].
Regarding claim 14, He’343 teaches:
The electrode terminals 216 of the cells 203 are connected in series or in parallel by a battery connecting plate 217 [0169].
Claims 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE et al. (US 20220416343) and HE et al. (US 20220416346) further in view of SAITO et al (US 20200185663) as applied to claim 13 and 14 above, and further in view of JO et al (20190100099).
Regarding claim (s) 15 and 16, He’343 teaches:
Structural reinforcing member 202, structural reinforcing member with “[“ shape and a structural reinforcing member with “L” shape.
Combination is silence about a T-shaped reinforcing member. In the same field of endeavor, reinforcing member, JO teaches the use of a T-shape reinforcing member to obtain tension [0093] but in FIG 10d shows the T-shape reinforcing member with a form of “H”, where this member has a two-wing plate, a sub-plate, two first surface and two second surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify this shape of JO to have an actual T-shape by eliminate one of the wing plates because only one is needed to provide the reinforcing on the cover top. This modification results in a more compact reinforcing structure and reduce the lateral space occupied by the reinforcing member in the cell assembly. A person ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the modification involves the use of a known reinforcing member geometry for its known structural function.
Regarding claim 18, He’343 teaches:
FIG. 13 shows the battery pack, comprising the battery module.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICOLAS J ROSA BERRIOS at telephone number (571)270-1856.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/Nicolas Rosa/
Examiner, Art Unit 1741
7/6/2026
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights