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 § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2020/0388804 A1), hereinafter ‘804, in view of Lee et al (US 2022/0399578 A1), hereinafter ‘578.
Regarding claim 1, ‘804 discloses a battery module (Figure 3; battery module (200); [abstract]), comprising:
A first holder configured to accommodate first sides of a plurality of battery cells spaced apart from each other in a first direction and a second direction crossing each other (Figure 3; lower case (210b) accommodates a lower portion of a plurality of battery cells that are spaced apart from each other; [0016] and [0097]); and
A second holder configured to accommodate second sides of the battery cells (Figure 3; upper case (210a) accommodates an upper portion of battery cells (100); [0097]); and
A coupling member formed of a conductive material and configured to fasten the first holder and the second holder to each other in a third direction crossing the first and second directions (Figures 3 and 5; upper case (210a) and lower case (210b) both have connecting portions (215) that contain circular tubes that extend towards each other and are coupled together with a bolt; [0101] – [0103]); and
A plurality of tabs configured to electrically connect the battery cells (Figure 3; connection plates (220) contain contact portions (227) that electrically connect battery cells (100); [0079] – [0081]); and
At least one of the first holder or the second holder comprises a rib protruded in the third direction (Figures 3-6; both the upper case (210a) and the lower case (210b) contain hollow tubes (213) with a connecting portion (215) that protrudes in the first direction and separates the battery cells (100) from each other; [0085] – [0093]).
‘804 fails to explicitly disclose that a plurality of bus bars are used to connect the tabs to a battery management system. While ‘804 does teach that both a bus bar and a battery management system can be used in tandem with the battery module ([0083] and [0118]), it does not disclose that a plurality of bus bars are used for this express purpose.
‘578, also drawn to battery art (abstract), discloses a battery module containing a plurality of bus bars that are used to electrically connect battery cells to a battery management system (Figures 7-14; unit module (110) contains a plurality of bus bars (114) that connect battery cells (111) to a battery management system (21); [010] – [012] and [0070] – [0071]). ‘578 teaches that electrically connecting battery cells to a battery management system with the use of bus bars allows the battery management system to properly control both the charging and discharging of the battery module ([0070] – [0073]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified ‘804 to incorporate the teachings of ‘578 to directly connect a battery management system to the connection plate tabs with bus bars to allow for appropriate charge and discharge control of the battery module.
Regarding claim 2, ‘804 in view of ‘578 discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 1. ‘804 further discloses that the tabs comprise a first tab member that is bent so that it can be on a side and a surface of both the upper holder and the lower holder in order to the connect battery cells together in parallel (Figure 3; connection plates (221) on upper surface and side surface of upper case (210a) and lower case (210b) to connect battery cells (100); [0069] and [0079] – [0080]); and
A second tab member on the upper surface of the second holder and on the lower surface of the first holder to connect the batter cells together in parallel or series (Figure 3; connection plates (220) on upper surface of upper case (210a) and lower surface of lower case (210b) to connect battery cells (100); [0069] and [0079] – [0080]).
Regarding claim 7, ‘804 in view of ‘578 discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 1. ‘804 further discloses that a coupling member is used to couple the first holder to the second holder (Figure 3; circular tube (b1) of the upper case (210a) and circular tube (b2) of the lower case are coupled together with a bolt; [0103]). Although ‘804 does not explicitly teach that the coupling member has a screw portion on one end of a pillar and a head portion with larger diameter than the screw portion on the other end of the pillar, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood those portions to be necessary in a coupling member. The term bolt is defined in the dictionary as “any of several types of strong fastening means, including rods, pins or screws.” In light of the foregoing, it would have either been implicit or, at the very least, obvious, to have used a screw type because (1) it falls within the definition of fastening means used by ‘804 and (2) they are well known for providing secure fastening. The bolt in ‘804 would have reasonably had a head portion with a larger diameter than the screw portion to prevent the bolt from passing completely through the coupled tubes (the head grabs the attaching surface, as is commonly understood by individuals using nails/screws). The courts have stated that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom” (MPEP 2144.01). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the coupling member consisted of the claimed specifications to ensure proper coupling of the upper and lower casing, the combination being even further evidenced by the definition of the term “bolt”.
Regarding claim 8, ‘804 in view of ‘578 discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 7. ‘804 further discloses that the rib has a height protruding in the third direction (Figures 5-6; connection portions (215) and hollow tubes (213) of case (210) extend vertically; [0085] – [0093]). ‘804 does not teach that the height of the rib is larger than one-half of a size obtained by subtracting the diameter of the screw portion of the coupling member from the diameter of the head portion of the coupling member. ‘804 does, however, disclose the use of both the protruding rib and the coupling member, as discussed above in claim 1. The courts have generally found that changes in relative dimensions with no corresponding change in function are not considered to be patentable [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)]. Since the claimed rib height does not impart additional functionality, the dimensions of the rib relative to the coupling member are not considered to be patentably distinguishing features.
Regarding claim 9, ‘804 in view of ‘578 discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 2. Neither ‘804 or ‘578 explicitly teaches either that the length of the coupling member is longer than a shortest separation distance between the first tab member and its adjacent second tab member or that the coupling member is also longer than the shortest separation distance between the two adjacent second tab members. However, ‘804 does disclose the use of both a coupling member ([0103]) and tab members ([0069)]. It would have been an obvious and arguably necessary design choice to make the length of the coupling member longer than the shortest separation distance between adjacent tab members to ensure that the coupling member could successfully extend from the upper case to the lower case. The courts have stated that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom” (MPEP 2144.01). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the coupling member had a length that is long enough to securely couple the upper and lower cases. In addition to the foregoing, the examiner also notes that the courts have generally found that changes in relative dimensions with no corresponding change in function are not considered to be patentable [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)].
Regarding claim 10, ‘804 in view of ‘578 discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 1. ‘804 further discloses a lower surface of the first holder and an upper surface of the second holder each having an accommodating portion corresponding to a thickness of the tab to accommodate said tabs (Figures 3-4 and 7; upper case (210a) and lower case (210b) both have stoppers (216) in which the connection plates (220) and (221) are fixed upon; [0105] – [0107]).
Regarding claim 11, ‘804 in view of ‘578 discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 10. ‘804 further discloses that the first holder has an opening on a lower surface and the second holder has an opening on an upper surface in which the electrode terminals of the battery cells are exposed (Figures 3, 4, and 7; electrode terminals (111) on the top and bottom of battery cells (110) are exposed through an opening in both the upper case (210a) and lower case (210b); [0072] – [0073]); and
The tabs have a connecting portion bent at a first side of the accommodating portion to be connected to the electrode terminal (Figures 3, 10, and 11; connection plates (220) and (221) have a contact portion (227) that is bent to contact the electrode terminals (111); [0078] – [0081]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘804 and ‘578, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wintner (US 2017/0271643 A1).
Regarding claim 3, ‘804 in view of ‘578 discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 2. ‘804 further discloses that first tab member is provided as a single unit and that the second tab member is provided in a plurality (Figure 3; [0069]). However, neither ‘804 or ‘578 explicitly teaches that first tab member has a positive or negative polarity, the second tab member adjacent to the first tab member has a polarity different from that first tab member, and that both of the second tab members have different polarities.
Wintner, disclosing a battery assembly (abstract), teaches that the battery assembly contains battery cells that are electrically connected by bus bars of alternating polarities (Figure 7; battery cells (401) are connected with bus bars (407) of alternating polarities; [0005] and [0030]). It would have been obvious to modify the connection plates of ‘804 to incorporate the alternating polarity pattern taught by Wintner, as it would have provided a predictable method for electrically connecting battery cells together. Both ‘804 and Wintner use conductive members positioned between battery cells to electrically connect the cells. The use of alternating polarity conductive members as taught by Wintner is a known configuration for achieving the electric connection of the battery cells. The modification of ‘804 with Wintner would simply be the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of electrically connecting battery cells [(MPEP 2143 (I)(A)].
Regarding claim 4, ‘804 in view of ‘578 and Wintner discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 3. ‘804 further discloses a rib between the first tab member and the adjacent second tab member, as well as a rib between the two adjacent second tab members (Figures 4-6; case (210) contains connection portions (215) and hollow tubes (213) separating battery cells between connection plates; [0085] – [0096]).
Regarding claim 5, ‘804 in view of ‘578 and Wintner discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 4. ‘804 further discloses that the rib has curved portions curved along a shape of an accommodating hole in the second holder for accommodating the battery cells (Figures 4-6; hollow tubes (213) curved along the shape of the hole containing the battery cells (100); [0085] – [0096]), and a straight portion connecting the curved portions to each other in a straight line at a nearest distance (Figures 4-6; connecting portions (215) link hollow tubes (213) together; [0085] – [0096]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘804, ‘578, and Wintner as applied to claim 5 above, and optionally further in view of Kim (KR 2022/0067119 A).
Regarding claim 6, ‘804 in view of ‘578 and Wintner discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 5. While ‘804 does teach the use of a rib, it is not disclosed that the rib includes an installation portion between the curved portions of the rib for holding a thermistor. The examiner notes that how a portion is used is an intended use rather than a structural differentiation, and thus is not germane to the patentability of the battery module itself. The structure of ‘804 in view of ‘578 and Wintner defined above could be used in the defined way and thus meets the claim limitations as presented. For the sake of expediting prosecution, however, the examiner does note that such a use is known in the battery art, as outlined below.
Kim, disclosing a battery module ([0001]), teaches the use of a thermistor that is connected to the battery cells of the module (Figures 6-8 and 12; thermistor bridge (510) has an arrangement hole (511h) for holding a thermistor (630) that is connected to battery cells (110); [0047] - [0052] and [0059]). Kim also teaches that integrating a thermistor into a battery module allows for accurate and continuous tracking of temperature changes in the battery cells of the module ([0051] – [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified ‘804 to incorporate the teachings of Kim to include an area on the rib in which a thermistor could be installed on. Doing so would have allowed for precise and constant temperature monitoring of the battery cells within the battery module.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘804 and ‘578 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho (US 2016/0211499 A1).
Regarding claim 12, ‘804 in view of ‘578 discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 1. ‘804 further discloses the use of a case to accommodate a side of the first holder (Figure 8; lower plate (350) can be utilized to accommodate the lower side of the lower case (210b); [0062]) and a cover used to cover a side of the second holder (Figure 8; upper plate (340) can be used to cover the upper side of upper case (210a); [0062]). ‘804 does not, however, teach that a rib facing and corresponding to the battery cells can be placed on an inner surface of the cover.
Cho, disclosing a battery module, teaches the use of a cover that has a rib on its inner surface that faces and corresponds to the battery cells in the module (Figures 1-4; holder cover (220) includes ribs (222) that face and separate the battery cells (100); [0038] and [0040]). Cho also discloses that it is beneficial to use a rib on the inner surface of the cover to keep the battery cells separated from each other as they swell due to charging and discharging ([0040] – [0042]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified ‘804 to incorporate the teachings of Cho to add a rib onto the cover of the battery module. Doing so would have improved the stability of the battery module by mitigating the effects of any battery cell swelling that occurred in the module.
Regarding claim 13, ‘804 in view of ‘578 and Cho discloses the rechargeable battery module as discussed above in claim 12. While Cho teaches the use of a cover rib that is repeated in the first and second directions ([0040] – [0042]), the shape of the cover rib is not taught to be a hexagon. The courts have generally found that changes in shape are a matter of obvious design choice and not patentable [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)]. In this case, the claimed cover rib being in the shape of a hexagon is a result of it corresponding to the structure of the battery module and does not impart any new or specific benefit to either the case or the module. Therefore, the shape of the cover rib being a hexagon is not considered to be patentably distinguishing feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights