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 .
Status
Claims 14, 19 and 21 are amended. Claim 18 is cancelled. Claim 27 is new.
Rejection of claims 14 and 26 under 35USC102 over Kita are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Rejection of claim 14 under 35USC102 over Lee2019 is withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Rejection of 14-17 and 22-25 under 35USC103 over modified Lee2019 is withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
The rejection of the subject matter of canceled claim 18, now incorporated into claim 14, is maintained over Lee2019 in view of Nusier.
Claim Analysis
Claims 14 and 27 are directed to a single battery cell stack housing and do not require more than one housing present and bolted to the other, rather, claim 14 merely requires the bolting portion be capable of coupling to additional housings. In claim 27, lines 10-15 with respect to a condition which depends on an adjacent housing which is not claimed and may depend on the particulars thereof is not particularly limiting so long as the prior art teaches the structure of the first housing capable of when coupled to any adjacent housing could behave in the claimed manner. That is, the bolting structure of the unclaimed adjacent housing influences the distance from which the buffer portion does/does not contact.
Claim 26, in contrast, positively requires at least two battery cell stack housings
connected.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: formatting differs from the rest of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-15, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ogino (US20200176747 IDS dated 2/18/25).
As to claim 14, Ogino teaches a battery cel stack housing (70) comprising: a receiving portion (23) configured to allow a battery cell stack (22) to be mounted therein (fig. 2) the receiving portion comprising first and second sides (25/26) (fig. 1-2); a bolting portion (83-85 and 34) configured to couple a plurality of housings adjacent one another (70, 80) and a buffer portion (25a of 97) configured to absorb volume expansion of the battery cell stacks ([0038]), the buffer portion including a buffer structure projecting (25a) in an overall width (x) direction parallel to the expansion direction (A/B) of the cell stack on the first side surface (25) (fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Ogino teaches the bolting portion (83-85 and 34) located at upper and lower ends of the first side surface (83-85) and the second side surface (34).
Regarding claim 23, Ogino teaches that the projecting height of the buffer portion (25a) is less than the projecting height of the bolting portion (83-85) (fig. 1-3: height being the Z direction).
Regarding claim 26, Ogino teaches a battery pack comprising the cell stack housing connected in the horizontal direction (X) (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 14, 23 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sun (US20200161611).
As to claim 14, Sun teaches a battery cell stack housing comprising: a receiving portion (100) configured to allow a battery cell stack (fig. 1: unlabeled cells within 100) to be mounted therein (fig. 1), the receiving portion (100) comprising a first side surface (left) and a second side surface (right); a bolting portion (holes/bolts in 110 and 211b) configured to couple a plurality of battery cell stack housings (fig. 1 and 6: left) disposed adjacent to each other (fig. 1 and 6: right) ([0045]). Sun teaches a buffer portion (220) configured to absorb volume expansion (force from 100) of the battery cell stack ([0046]). Sun teaches that the buffer portion is positioned between adjacent modules and functions to absorb force/movement in the Y direction of the module ([0064]) which is the direction of cell stacking and would coincide with cell expansion forces (fig. 1) thereby being capable of absorbing such an expansion force; the buffer portion is therefore in the width direction parallel to an expansion direction (Y). Sun teaches the buffer structure (220) projecting on at least one of the first and second side surfaces (fig. 1: right sides) (fig. 7: 110) or via 211 (fig. 6) but also the buffer (220) may be bonded to the side surface (110) in any of the described embodiments ([0068 and 78]).
Regarding claim 23, Sun teaches that the projecting height of the buffer portion (220) is less than the projecting height of the bolting portion (211b and bolts in 110) (fig. 6: height being the Z direction).
Regarding claim 26, Sun teaches a battery pack comprising the cell stack housing connected in the horizontal direction (Y) (fig. 1).
Further regarding claim 27, in addition to the limitations discussed above with respect to claim 14, Sun teaches optional embodiments where 211a and/or 211b may be elongated in the Y direction so that the battery module housings can move when a force (expansion for example) occurs and return to their original positions ([0066]). Sun also teaches that the buffer portion (220) is less than the overall width direction length (Y) than the bolting portion 211b) (fig. 6 and [0062-66]). Sun’s optional embodiments where the modules can move are capable of the intended use limitations (lines 10-15) especially given the BRI/claim analysis wherein there is no difference in claimed structure and the another housing is not required (claim 27 is directed to a single housing not two adjacent housings) such that depending on force applied and bolting portion of the adjacent housing the limitation the housing of Sun is capable of moving to contact one another and then return to its original position which can be spaced apart from an adjacent housing again depending on that (unclaimed) housing’s particular structure.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20190363392) in view of Lee2011 (US20110151311, previously presented).
As to claim 14, Kim teaches a battery module for use in a battery pack ([0002]) wherein a buffer portion (215/216/300) absorbs and provides uniform pressure distribution over the entire end plate region ([0043]) when swelling occurs ([0040]). The protrusions (215) of Kim read on a buffer structure projecting in an overall width direction parallel to the expansion direction of the battery cell stack (110) on at least one first side surface (211) (fig. 5 and [0024]). Kim depicts upper and lower module surfaces connecting between first (211) and second end walls (212) (fig. 4) but fails to teach a bolting portion capable of coupling a plurality of battery housing stacks.
Lee2011 teaches a battery cell stack housing comprising: a receiving
portion (320/330/340/350) configured to allow a battery cell stack (310s) to be mounted therein (fig. 7-8), the receiving portion (320/330/340/350) comprising a first side surface (left
350) and a second side surface (right 350); a bolting portion (holes/bolts such as 165 or 352-354) configured to couple a plurality of battery cell stack housings disposed adjacent to each other (fig. 7-8; [0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to use the bolting portions of Lee2011 in Kim in order to provide a battery pack with a plurality of modules stacked to form a battery pack ([0026 and 35]) wherein one of ordinary skill would appreciate that the number of modules in a battery pack is an obvious matter of design choice depending on the load requirements for example a vehicle vs a phone.
Regarding claim 15, Lee2011 teaches the bolting portion (352-354) is located at an upper and lower end of each of the first side surface and second side surface (350s)(fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Lee2011 teaches the bolting portion (165 or 352-354) has a structure with a through-hole (holes therein) in a fastening portion; the through-hole (holes in 352-354) extending (up-down) perpendicularly (left-right) to the first and second sides (350)(fig. 7). “Perpendicularly” in Lee2011 is the same as the instant specification [0052] exemplified relationship between instant 121 and 113.
Regarding claim 17, Lee2011 teaches the fastening portion (350 where holes are) is disposed at various lengths in the overall length direction of the receiving portion (320/330/340/350) (fig. 7). Examiner notes that “disposed in an overall length direction” is broad; given the broadest reasonable interpretation, all structures are related in three dimensions and therefore are necessarily disposed at a coordinate with respect to three axes including length.
Regarding claim 24, modified Kim is silent to upper and lower surfaces having a hollow therein. However, Lee2011 teaches that the receiving portion (320/330/340/350) further comprises upper (320) and lower surfaces (330) and each of the upper and lower surfaces (320/330) has a hollow therein (formed by 332 and 352/grooves in 320) (fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the hollowed upper and lower surfaces of Lee2011 in modified Kim to form a gas passage to discharge any gas generated by the stack, as taught by Lee2011 ([0097]).
Claim(s) 14 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee2019 (US20190363321) in view of Nusier (US20160233467) as previously presented.
As to claim 14, Lee2019 teaches a battery cell stack housing comprising: a receiving portion (module case [0058]) configured to allow a battery cell stack (101) (fig. 18) ([0183]) to be mounted therein (fig. 1), the receiving portion (100) comprising a first side surface (left) and a second side surface (right); a bolting portion (200) configured to couple a plurality of battery cell stack housings (100BL and 100BR) disposed adjacent to each other (fig. 1). Lee2019 teaches a buffer portion configured to absorb volume expansion of the battery cell stack ([0086]). Lee2019 teaches that the buffer portion is positioned between adjacent modules and functions to absorb volume expansion of the module ([0086]) as well as to absorb impact from vibration or side impacts ([0067] and [0002]); the buffer portion is therefore in the width direction parallel to an expansion direction of the batteries stacked inside 100 but is silent to a buffer structure projecting on at least one of the first and second side surfaces (right/left sides).
Nusier teaches a module receiving portion (46) with a battery (12) cell stack mounted ([0003], [0029]) therein (fig. 1). Nusier teaches the use of a buffer structure projecting in the width direction (48) on all sides including the claimed first and second side surfaces of the module to absorb impact ([0031]) (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to use the protecting structure of Nusier in Lee2019 as an art recognized means for solving the problem of impact absorption and because Nusier teaches such a configuration results in mark reduction of deformation ([0044]). As a result of the combination the modules of Lee2019 have the buffer projections around each module 100.
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee2019 teaches the buffer structure comprises a cushion portion having a vertical sectional shape of a horseshoe (Nusier: fig. 8-10). Moreover, changes in shape are a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant over the closest prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lee2019 teaches further comprising a guard (T-shaped guide; [0039-40]) outside the cushion portion (64) (Nusier: fig. 10/11: 74/78).
Regarding claim 21, modified Lee2019 teaches the buffer portion disposed in an overall length direction of the receiving portion (Lee2019 [0086] and Nusier fig. 2).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Kato (US20190341589).
Regarding claim 22, Ogino is silent to the first and second surfaces (end plates: 110) gradually decreasing from a central part to upper and lower ends.
Kato teaches first and second surfaces of a battery cell stack housing (60: end plates) having various shapes such as (fig. 14) similar to that of Ogino as well as a shape in which thickness is gradually decreased from center to upper and lower ends (fig. 15) among others (fig. 11-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the shapes of Kato in Ogino in order to tailor the contact portion and prevent excessive load during expansion (increase in size), as taught by Kato ([0008]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Lee2011 as applied to claim 14 above further in view of Lim (US20220181743 previously cited).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kim teaches the use of metal as a casing material (receiving portion) is made of metal (Kim[0034]) wherein the end plates (Kim: 210) on which the buffer projection exist make up the casing (Kim: [0035]) and while in modified Kim Lee2011 is silent the casing material (of which bolting portions are integrally formed) it would be obvious to use metal as an art recognized material suitable for casing as taught by Kim. As previously presented and in an effort to expedite prosecution, modified Kim remains silent to extrusion molding.
Lim teaches the use of metal for battery module housing (receiving) components ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use
metal for the housing/receiving components of Lee2019 as an art recognized material suitable
for the intended purpose MPEP 2144.07. While, extrusion molding is considered a product by
process limitation in an effort to promote compact prosecution Lim teaches this method is
known in the art and therefore would have been obvious to use with a reasonable expectation
of similar results i.e. formation of the components especially since Lim teaches extrusion molding offers improved manufacturing characteristics ([0100]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 under 35USC102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 with respect to now withdrawn claim 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the buffer portion of Nusier is directed to mechanical impact on the module not to absorbing internal expansion of the stack. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case the structure of Nusier is capable of absorbing force, as required by the claimed invention, including the mechanical force resulting from adjacent housing swelling and pressing thereon. The argument does not present a structural difference between the prior art and the instant claimed invention therefore the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights