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 Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation of “the side frame” in lines 8 and 13, appears it should be “the side frames”
Regarding Claim 3, 6 and 9, the limitation of “the side frame” appears it should be “the side frames”
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, and 10-15 are also objected since the claims depend on claim 1.
Appropriate correction 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Choi (US Pub No. 2022/0037726)
Regarding Claim 1, Choi et al. teaches a battery pack [Fig. 3, 0038], comprising:
A pair of base plates [see annotated figure]
A center [see are of 120, Fig. 7, 0094] from between the pair of base plates and connected to each of the base plates [see annotated figure] at both sides in a longitudinal direction [In figure 3, the longitudinal direction is the direction of X2];
A pair of side frames each connected to an outer side surface of each of the base plates in the longitudinal direction [see annotated figure]; and
A plurality of battery modules [210, Fig. 3, 0076] on the pair of base plates in a pack space [the pack space is the area between the side frames, where the batteries are inserted, Fig. 3] between the center frame and the side frame,
Wherein each of the plurality of battery modules [210, Fig. 3, 0076] includes a pair of module frames [251, Fig. 7, 0139] and accommodates a plurality of battery cells [see cells in 210, Fig. 3, 0139], and wherein the plurality of battery modules are accommodated in the pack space and the module frames [251, Fig. 7, 0139] are disposed in a direction crossing the center frame and the side frame [see annotated figure below]
The circle shows one base plate, the circle is to show the area of 115 as the base plate, there are 12 base plates in the figure below, 6 on one side and other 6 on the other side. The solid lines are the side frames. The solids arrows are the front and rear frame
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
552
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein the pair of module frames [251, Fig. 7, 0139] are disposed at both ends of the plurality of battery cells arranged in along a thickness direction of the battery cells [Fig. 7, 0054].
Regarding Claim 3, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein the module frame [251, Fig. 7, 0139] is fixed to one of the side frames while accommodating the plurality of battery cells [Fig. 3, and Fig. 7, 0054].
Regarding Claim 4, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein adjacent module frames between two adjacent battery modules among the plurality of battery
modules are fixed to each other in the longitudinal direction [Fig. 3, and Fig. 7, 0054].
Regarding Claim 5, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein the module frames are fixed to the base plate [Fig. 3, and Fig. 7, 0054].
Regarding Claim 6, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein the module frames support a load in the direction crossing the center frame and the side frame [Fig. 3, and Fig. 7, 0054].
Regarding Claim 7, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein the plurality of battery modules are accommodated in the pack space [Fig. 7, 0054].
Choi et al. teaches all the structural limitation of the claim. The limitation of “by utilizing a temporary battery module including a pair of temporary assembly plates coupled to an upper surface and a lower surface of the pair of module frames, respectively.” is considered a product by process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches all the structural limitation of the claim. The limitation of “wherein the center frame and the side
frames are connected to the pair of base plates through friction stir welding.” is considered a product by process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches further comprising: a front frame and a rear frame coupled to the pair of side frames to surround a
peripheral portion of the pack space, wherein the side frame, the front frame, and the rear frame have the same shape [See annotated figure].
Regarding Claim 10, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein the base plate includes a plurality of cooling channels extending in the longitudinal direction therein [151, Fig. 9, 0096].
Regarding Claim 11, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein the cooling channel is integrally formed with the base plate [0096].
Regarding Claim 12, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. teaches wherein one ends of the cooling channels in the longitudinal direction of the base plate form inlet channels, and the other ends thereof in the longitudinal direction of the base plate form outlet channels [151, Fig. 9, 0096].
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(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub No. 2022/0037726) in view of Lee (US Pub No. 2023/0092616)
Regarding Claim 13, Choi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Choi et al. is silent on wherein an inlet joint and an outlet joint are coupled to the inlet channel and the outlet channel, respectively.
Lee et al. teaches the use of a coolant inlet and outlet [0070] for a battery pack.
Since Choi et al. teaches the use of battery pack with coolant channels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the coolant inlet and outlets of Lee et al. with the coolant channels of Choi et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches wherein the inlet joint and the outlet joint respectively have one coolant inlet and one coolant outlet to be connected to the inlet channels and the outlet channels in parallel [see rejection of claim 13].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub No. 2022/0037726) in view of Lee (US Pub No. 2023/0092616) as applied above in addressing claim 13, in further view of Keum (US Pub No. 2020/0020997)
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. is silent on wherein the inlet joint and the outlet joint are connected to the inlet channel and the outlet channel through quick connectors, respectively.
Keum et al. teaches a battery pack with a lower portion that comprises quick connectors [0012].
Since modified Choi et al. teaches the use of coolant channels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the quick connectors of Keum et al. with the coolant channels of modified Choi et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights