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 § 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 1-3 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.
The term “substantially parallelepiped” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallelepiped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of “substantially”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Please note, the Examiner will be treating “substantially parallelepiped” as a rectangular battery cell for the purposes of claim examination. Claims 2 and 3 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore are subject to rejection on the same basis.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101975988 B1 (hereinafter referred to “KR-988”) and Jee Hoon et al. (EP 3790076 A1) and further in view of Robert et al (WO 2019034852 A1).
As to claim 1. KR-988 teaches a restraint member according to claim 1, the restraint structure being the pouch that holds the battery (see “pouch” 100T and 100B in Par. 31 and Fig. 3. Also “electrode assembly” which is the battery, 200 in Par. 31 and Fig. 3). In KR-988 it is stated the metal layers of the pouch 100 secures the mechanical strength of the pouch and seals the battery contained therein from outside moisture and gas (see “metal layer” in Pars. 41-43). The pouch has two components 100T and 100B, 100T is being considered the restraint member (see “upper pouch” 100T in Par. 31 and Fig. 3). The rectangular structure of the above-mentioned pouch-type cell would result in the restraint member facing the battery cell in a laminating direction of a rectangular battery cell. KR-988 does not teach a mounting base, an elastic member or the battery cell being substantially parallelepiped shape.
Jee Hoon et al teaches a module comprising a battery cell stack and a frame member where the cells are inserted. The frame member (see “frame member” in Abstract and Pars. 17 and 18. 200 in Fig. 3) contains a planar surface part (see 210 and 220 in Par. 46 Figs. 4-6). Additionally, Jee Hoon et al teaches an elastic member with a curved surface on opposing ends of the above-mentioned planar frame (see “elastic members” 230 and 240 in Pars. 49-51). Jee Hoon et al also teaches the elastic member having a central bulge in the laminating direction of the battery cell. The curved surface of said elastic members are analogous to bulges in an elastic member and have increased deformation range which improves the materials ability to accommodate the swelling of a battery cell (Pars. 49-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a pouch-type cell housing taught by KR-988 with an elastic member comprising a planar structure with bulged faces on both opposing ends of the planar member as taught by Jee Hoon et al in order to achieve increased deformation ranges and ability to compensate for battery swelling and contractions.
KR-988, Jee Hoon, and Robert et al do not teach an elastic member that faces 5 surfaces of the battery cell. However, it would have further been obvious to optimize the shape of the elastic member to have contact with 5 faces of a rectangular battery cell as to maximize the increased ability of the elastic member to accommodate the expansion of the battery as taught by Jee Hoon et al on each of the available 5 faces. Additionally, it would have been further obvious to arrange the elastic member to have contact surfaces in contact with the restraint member as to secure the foam in place and ensure it fulfills its intended function of accommodating any swelling of the battery that may occur. As the elastic member is in contact with 5 faces of the rectangular battery, at least one contact surface will face the elastic member in a laminating direction of the battery cell. KR-988 and Jee Hoon et al does not teach a mounting plate being housed in and restrained by the restraint member.
Robert et al teaches a mounting plate placed within the sealed edges of a pouch-type cell meant to receive external probes, sensors, material lengths and devices within the sealed edges of the pouch cell. This avoids needing to insert these devices and materials from being inserted through the pouch seal which would introduce points of weakness (see “mounting plate” in Abstract L15-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify KR-988 in view of Jee Hoon with the teachings of Robert as the modification would provide the benefits taught by Robert.
As to claim 2. Jee Hoon teaches elastic members fixed to the opposing ends of said planar surface that have a convexly curved surface (see 230 and 240 in Figs. 4-6). Jee Hoon et al also teaches the elastic deformation ranges of the curved surfaces of 230 and 240 are increased allowing said parts to more flexibly cope with swelling of the battery cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify KR-988 with a convexly surfaced elastic member as taught by Jee Hoon in order to improve the ability of said elastic member to accommodate the swelling of the battery cells held therein.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-988 B1, Jee Hoon et al. (EP 3790076 A1), and Robert et al (WO 2019034852 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Wansong et al. (WO 2021164594 A1).
As to claim 3. The combination of KR-988, Jee Hoon, and Robert teaches all the limitations of the claims, except at least one contact surface that faces the laminated end surfaces of the battery cell and has a recess formed therein. Wansong et al. teaches a battery sequence comprising a plurality of batteries wherein each battery comprises a housing and pole core. The housing is recessed after negative pressure is extracted (see Abstract and Pg.5 Par. 5, also 100 and 110 in Fig. 5). When the battery expands, it can fill these recesses which improves production efficiency of the housing and compensating for the battery expansion (see Pg. 5 Par. 5 and Pg. 6 Par. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cap or top-portion of a pouch type cell 100T in KR-988 to have recesses that would accommodate expansion of a material into said recesses as taught by Wansong et al. in order to improve production efficiency of the restraint member.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (WO 2022149892 A1) teaches a pouch type battery cell that includes a foam layer to accommodate the volume expansion of the battery cell without an additional buffer member. This foam layer is a type of elastic and reads on the elastic member as seen in claim 1 (see “foam layer” 110 in Figs. 1-3). The foam layer serves to accommodate or alleviate the volume expansion of the pouch-type battery cell. Yamamoto et al. (WO 2022130450 A1) This utilizes a restraint structure (see “spacer” 25 which is an internal cavity of the “outer container” 3 in Figs. 2, 6 and 7) The contact surfaces would face the laminated end surfaces of a battery cell due to the rectangular shape of the restraint structure and of the pouch-type cell. At least one of the contact surfaces has a recess formed therein (see 35 where plates have a concave portion that is recessed towards the “cover member” 5 in figs. 6 and 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from this examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1910. The examiner can be normally reached M-W 10:00am – 10:00pm, T 10:00am – 2:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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 more information about filing 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.
WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights