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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Paragraph 0008, the phrase “For example, the counter attachment portion may be formed as on or multiple…” should read as “For example, the counter attachment portion may be formed as one or multiple…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 states “The carrier unit of claim 1, the at least the two side portions…”. This should be rewritten as “The carrier unit of claim 1, the at least two side portions…”.
Claim 5 states “between two side portions and the bottom portion is being formed.” This language is unclear and should be removed as the relationship between the side portions and bottom portion is already stated within the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 5 as describing a substantially perpendicular angle of the side portions with respect to the bottom portion of the carrier unit. This interpretation would remain after removal of the quoted phrase and is consistent with the written description and drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the at least the two side portions" in line 1. Claim 1 states only that there are two side portions and does not introduce the possibility for more. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang et al (US 20230198047).
Regarding Claim 1, Hwang teaches a carrier unit for a battery module (housing 20; Paragraph 0043; Figure 2), comprising a bottom portion configured to carry at least one row of battery cells (bottom plate 21; Paragraph 0043; Figure 2) and two side portions configured to accommodate the at least one row of battery cells (side plates 25 and 26; Paragraph 0045; Figure 2], the carrier unit being at least partially flexible. The bottom plate 21 and side plates 25 and 26 may be formed of aluminum (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 2, Hwang teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, the carrier unit being at least partially flexible for deformation of the carrier unit due to swelling of the battery cells. The plates may be formed of aluminum (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 3, Hwang teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, the at least the two side portions being flexible with respect to the bottom portion. The bottom plate 21 and the side plates 25 and 26 may be formed as a unibody and the side plates 25 and 26 may be formed to extend upwardly from the bottom plate 21 (Paragraphs 0046-0047; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Hwang teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, the bottom portion and the two side portions comprising a sheet, the two side portions being bent with respect to the bottom portion in a substantially perpendicular angle between two side portions and the bottom portion is being formed. The bottom plate 21 and the side plates 25 and 26 may be formed as a unibody and the side plates 25 and 26 may be formed to extend upwardly from the bottom plate 21 (Paragraphs 0046-0047; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Hwang teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, at least one of the bottom portion and the two side portions comprising a metal sheet. The bottom plate 21 and the side plates 25 and 26 may be a unibody formed of aluminum (Paragraph 0044-0046).
Regarding Claim 7, Hwang teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, the two side portions being located at opposite ends of the bottom portion. Side plates 25 and 26 are located on opposite ends of the bottom plate 21 as seen in Figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Hwang teaches a battery module comprising the carrier unit of claim 1 and at least one row of battery cells. A battery module 1 including a housing 20 comprising a bottom plate 21 and side plates 25 and 26 able to accommodate a row of battery cells 11 (Paragraphs 0042-0049; Figure 2).
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tang et al (US 20230032539).
Regarding Claim 1, Tang teaches a carrier unit for a battery module, the carrier unit comprising: a bottom portion configured to carry at least one row of battery cells; and two side portions configured to accommodate the at least one row of battery cells in a space formed between the two side portions; the carrier unit being at least partially flexible. A box 50 accommodates two rows of stacked battery cells 10 comprising a box housing 52 with bottom and side portions (Paragraph 0058, Figure 2). The box housing 52 includes a buffer structure 27 which allows deformation of the box housing 52 (Paragraph 0095).
Regarding Claim 8, Tang teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, the bottom portion of the carrier unit comprising at least one channel for transporting a cooling fluid for cooling the battery cells. Flow channels 30 located on the box housing 52 which includes the bottom portion of the box 50 configured to hold battery units 10 comprising multiple battery cells 20 (Paragraphs 0058-0060; Figure 2)
Regarding Claim 9, Tang teaches the carrier unit of claim 8, the at least one channel being formed in between two sheets of the bottom portion. Flow channel 30 of the upper cover 51 is formed between a convex portion 55 of the concave-convex plate 53 and the flat plate 54 (Paragraph 0076; Figures 5 & 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Tang teaches the battery module of claim 11, the carrier unit comprising at least two adjacent rows of battery cells accommodated in the space between the two side portions of the carrier unit. “As shown in FIG. 2, the multiple layers of battery units 10 arranged in the first direction Z are accommodated in the box 50, and the multiple battery cells 20 in each battery unit 10 can be arranged in a second direction X and a third direction Y, where the second direction X is orthogonal to the third direction Y, and both the second direction X and the third direction Y are orthogonal to the first direction Z. This means that the multiple battery cells 20 in the battery unit 10 may be arranged in a matrix structure.” (Paragraph 0059; Figure 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
521
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US20230395926).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a casing 11 comprising a top plate 111 a bottom plate 112 and two side plates 113 between which a cell stack 12 of battery cells 121 are held (Paragraph 0055, Figure 1). The casing 11 includes first protrusions 1111 and second protrusions 1121 which allow for plastic deformation of the bottom plate 112 in response to battery cell swelling (Paragraph 0058, Figure 1)
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, the carrier unit comprising at least two attachment portions for suspending the carrier unit inside a battery pack. Side plates 113 of the battery module 1 being connected to the box body 2 on each side via connecting pieces 3. Figures 1 and 2 further show multiple points of attachment between the side plates 113 and the box body 2 (Paragraph 0069; Figures 1 and 2).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 20230261329).
Regarding Claim 13, Park teaches the battery module of claim 11 and a battery pack for a vehicle, the battery pack comprising at least two battery modules. A predetermined number of secondary battery cells may constitute one battery module and one or more battery modules and other components are assembled to constitute the battery pack (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claim 15, Park teaches a vehicle comprising the battery pack of claim 13. Secondary batteries have been commonly used for vehicles to include electric vehicles (EVs) and hybrid vehicles (HEVs) among other devices (Paragraph 0003).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Zhu et al (US 20230110488).
Regarding Claim 4, Hwang teaches the carrier unit of claim 1, but fails to teach thickness as of the bottom portion and two side portions as claimed. However, Zhu et al teaches a wall thickness of the metal housing 11 between the ranges of 0.05 mm to 1 mm (Paragraph 0116). The overlap of the range taught by Zhu represents a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall thickness of the housing 20 taught by Hwang to be within the range of wall thickness taught by Zhu for the purpose of altering the weight of the carrier unit.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Watanabe et al (US 20080318119).
Park teaches the battery pack of claim 13, but fails to teach the battery modules being suspended inside the battery pack. Watanabe teaches a battery module 11 fixed to a lower case 4 of the battery pack 1E by bolts 33 in a manner which leaves a lower space 6 between the battery module 11 and the lower case 4 (Paragraphs 0024-0030; Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the suspension attachment taught by Watanabe to secure the battery module(s) to the battery pack.
PNG
media_image3.png
387
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights