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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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 4 and 5 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.
In claims 4 and 5, there appears to be inequalities that are missing from the claim rendering them indefinite. For purposes of this examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as including the inequality:
PNG
media_image1.png
51
132
media_image1.png
Greyscale
after the term “then”.
Claim 5 will be interpreted as including the inequality:
PNG
media_image2.png
45
76
media_image2.png
Greyscale
after the term “satisfies:”.
Clarification is required.
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, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hongo (US 2016/0118633).
Regarding claim 1, Hongo discloses a battery module, comprising:
a casing (2, 4, 5, see annotated Fig. 4 below); and
a plurality of cylindrical batteries (1) received in the casing (see Fig. 2 which illustrates how the cells 1 are situated in the casing 2/4/5), wherein first ends of the cylindrical batteries are provided with terminals (as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below), and the first ends of the cylindrical batteries facing an inner wall of the casing (as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below),
a space (as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below) between the first ends of the cylindrical batteries and the inner wall of the casing and part of a region (as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below) on a side surface of each of the cylindrical batteries close to the first end being filled with thermally conductive structural glue (glue/adhesive 3 that will naturally conduct heat).
PNG
media_image3.png
490
909
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Hongo
Regarding claim 2, Hongo further discloses gaps are provided between the side surfaces of the cylindrical batteries (see Fig. 2 which illustrates gaps between the side surfaces of the cells).
Regarding claim 7, Hongo further discloses the first ends of the cylindrical batteries face a bottom plate or a top plate of the casing (as depicted above, the cells face the top or bottom plate of the casing depending on orientation).
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (EP 1030387 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hongo discloses a battery module, comprising:
a casing (43 as depicted in Fig. 12); and
a plurality of cylindrical batteries (12) received in the casing (see Fig. 9 which illustrates how the cells 1 are situated in the casing 43), wherein first ends of the cylindrical batteries are provided with terminals (as depicted in annotated Fig. 15 below), and the first ends of the cylindrical batteries facing an inner wall of the casing (as depicted in annotated Fig. 15 below),
a space (as depicted in annotated Fig. 15 below) between the first ends of the cylindrical batteries and the inner wall of the casing and part of a region (as depicted in annotated Fig. 15 below) on a side surface of each of the cylindrical batteries close to the first end being filled with thermally conductive structural glue (glue/adhesive 76 that will naturally conduct heat).
PNG
media_image4.png
819
1171
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 15 of Takahashi
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi further discloses gaps are provided between the side surfaces of the cylindrical batteries (see Fig. 9 which illustrates gaps between the side surfaces of the cells).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi further discloses the first ends of the cylindrical batteries face a bottom plate or a top plate of the casing (as depicted above, the cells face the top or bottom plate of the casing depending on orientation).
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongo (US 2016/0118633) in view of Capati (US 2019/0081308).
Regarding claim 3, Hongo teaches a plurality of cells in the battery module but does not explicitly teach the minimum distance between the size surfaces of the cylindrical batteries is 1 mm to 10 mm.
Capati also discloses a battery module (see abstract).
Capati teaches cylindrical cells in an orientation similar to that of Hongo (see Fig. 1). Capati goes on to teach that the distance between the adjacent battery cells is preferable between 0.5 mm and 3mm (paragraph 80) and teaches that such separation is preferable in order to allow for suitable or sufficient thermal dissipation between cells and avoidance of electrical arcing between cells (paragraph 29).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to space the cells of Hongo apart from each other similar to that of Capati in order to allow for suitable or sufficient thermal dissipation between cells and avoidance of electrical arcing between cells.
Furthermore, modified Hongo does not explicitly teach the range of 1-10mm, but does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range (0.5-3mm). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (EP 1030387 A1) in view of Capati (US 2019/0081308).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi teaches a plurality of cells in the battery module but does not explicitly teach the minimum distance between the size surfaces of the cylindrical batteries is 1 mm to 10 mm.
Capati also discloses a battery module (see abstract).
Capati teaches cylindrical cells in an orientation similar to that of Takahashi (see Fig. 1). Capati goes on to teach that the distance between the adjacent battery cells is preferable between 0.5 mm and 3mm (paragraph 80) and teaches that such separation is preferable in order to allow for suitable or sufficient thermal dissipation between cells and avoidance of electrical arcing between cells (paragraph 29).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to space the cells of Takahashi apart from each other similar to that of Capati in order to allow for suitable or sufficient thermal dissipation between cells and avoidance of electrical arcing between cells.
Furthermore, modified Takahashi does not explicitly teach the range of 1-10mm, but does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range (0.5-3mm). As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (EP 1030387 A1) in view of Newman (US 2018/0316071).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches a fixing bracket disposed at second ends of the cylindrical batteries (such as bracket 44 which is opposite of bracket/casing 43), and the fixing bracket is provided with a plurality of through holes arranged in an array opposite to the cylindrical batteries (see Fig. 13 which illustrates several holes that pass through the body that are opposite/align with the cylindrical batteries).
Takahashi, however, does not teach wherein the second end of each of the cylindrical batteries comprises an explosion-proof valve.
Newman also discloses a battery module (see abstract).
Newman teaches a plurality of cylindrical cells (405) that contain a terminal (410) on one surface (see Fig. 5). Newman teaches on the opposite side of the terminals, there are explosion proof valves/vents (510) in order to prevent the cell from rupturing or otherwise being damaged (paragraph 37).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the vents of Newman to the opposite ends of the terminals of Takahashi in order to prevent the cell from rupturing or otherwise being damaged.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (EP 1030387 A1) in view of Newman (US 2018/0316071) in view of Wang (WO 2022/156083 with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Takahashi teaches explosion proof valves but does not teach that they are covered by a mica sheet with weak points corresponding to the explosion proof valves.
Wang also discloses a battery module (see abstract).
Wang, like Takahashi, teaches a venting system for each cell (3) comprises an explosion proof valve (6). Wang goes on to teach that these valves are covered by an insulating plate (4) made from mica (line 203) which contain weak points (41) that align with the valves and teaches such a material so that the plate (4) can withstand high temperatures and has insulating properties which will prevent the high temperatures from melting through damaging components of the battery module (lines 201-210).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the mica sheet of Wang over the explosion proof valves of modified Takahashi in order to prevent the high temperatures from melting through damaging components of the battery module.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (EP 1030387 A1) in view of Newman (US 2018/0316071) and Kimura (US 2014/0045038).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi teaches through holes, as described above, but is silent regarding the claimed buckle/groove configuration. More specifically, Takahashi does not teach:
wherein an edge of each of the through holes is provided with a buckle, and the buckle is engaged with a rolling groove on a side wall of each of the cylindrical batteries.
Kimura also discloses a battery module comprising a plurality of cylindrical cells (see abstract and Fig. 1).
Kimura, like Takahashi, teaches through holes in a plate (as depicted in Fig. 3). Kimura goes further and teaches a buckle/claw (32A) that is attached at the through hole of the plate which will lock into place with a rolling groove/annular groove (21A) that is located on a sidewall of the battery (see Fig. 3 which illustrates such a configuration). Kimura teaches such a configuration in order to suppress the displacement of the plurality of cells of cylindrical shape (paragraph 16).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the fixing means of Kimura in the configuration of modified Takahashi in order to suppress the displacement of the plurality of cells of cylindrical shape.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongo (US 2016/0118633) in view of Smith (US 2019/0260005).
Regarding claim 12, Hongo teaches a battery but is silent regarding a cooling mechanism for the battery. More specifically, Hongo does not teach a tray provided with a cold plate, wherein the battery module is received in the tray and is configured in a way that the first ends of the cylindrical batteries face the cold plate.
Smith also discloses a battery module (see abstract).
Smith, like Hongo, teaches a plurality of cylindrical cells in a battery module (see Fig. 2C). Smith teaches the inclusion of a cooling plate/tray (224) that sits against a terminal (negative terminal at the bottom of cells 208 in Fig. 2C) and teaches such a configuration in order to maintain a proper temperature within the cells (paragraph 76).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the cooling plate of Smith to the first side (or opposite side) of Hongo in order to cool the cells to the proper temperature.
Regarding claim 13, Hongo discloses a battery module, comprising:
a casing (2, 4, 5, see annotated Fig. 4 below); and
a plurality of cylindrical batteries (1) received in the casing (see Fig. 2 which illustrates how the cells 1 are situated in the casing 2/4/5), wherein first ends of the cylindrical batteries are provided with terminals (as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below), and the first ends of the cylindrical batteries facing an inner wall of the casing (as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below),
a space (as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below) between the first ends of the cylindrical batteries and the inner wall of the casing and part of a region (as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below) on a side surface of each of the cylindrical batteries close to the first end being filled with thermally conductive structural glue (glue/adhesive 3 that will naturally conduct heat).
Hongo teaches a battery but is silent regarding a cooling mechanism for the battery. More specifically, Hongo does not teach a tray provided with a cold plate, wherein the battery module is received in the tray and is configured in a way that the first ends of the cylindrical batteries face the cold plate.
Smith also discloses a battery module (see abstract).
Smith, like Hongo, teaches a plurality of cylindrical cells in a battery module (see Fig. 2C). Smith teaches the inclusion of a cooling plate/tray (224) that sits against a terminal (negative terminal at the bottom of cells 208 in Fig. 2C) and teaches such a configuration in order to maintain a proper temperature within the cells (paragraph 76).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the cooling plate of Smith to the first side (or opposite side) of Hongo in order to cool the cells to the proper temperature.
PNG
media_image3.png
490
909
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Hongo
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Hongo, teaches a battery module which comprises a busbar to connected the batteries of a battery module along with a thermally conductive structural glue. However, Hongo does not teach a configuration where the busbar is located in between the first end and the casing as well as being wrapped in the thermally conductive structural glue. Hongo teaches a busbar that sits atop the case and there is nothing in the prior art that would suggest modifying Hongo to relocate the busbar in addition to wrapping it in structural glue. In addition, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests the relationship between the height of the region A, the height of the battery cell and the diameter of the battery cell of claim 4. Furthermore, there is nothing in the prior art that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hongo to arrive at such a relationship.
In addition, claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2024/0363940 - Discloses a battery module which comprises cylindrical cells that are adhered to a plate with structural adhesive, similar to the instant invention.
US 2023/0261278 - Discloses cylindrical battery cells in battery module that are adhered to a cooling plate which is similar, but not identical to the instant invention.
US 2016/0149474 - Discloses a battery module with cylindrical batteries that comprise an adhesive that bonds a side surface of the battery cell to a carrier/case, similar to that claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights