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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2024 is being considered by the examiner with the exception of KR101089160B1.
The English translation abstract of KR101089160B1 was not submitted. Instead, it appears the English abstract of KR2010121555A was submitted alongside KR101089160B1.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “each unit frame” when it should recite “each unit frame of the plurality of unit frames” to provide consistency to the claims.
Claim 5 recites “the foremost unit frame” when it should recite “the foremost unit frame of the unit frame assembly” to provide consistency to the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the foremost unit frame” when it should recite “the foremost unit frame of the unit frame assembly” to provide consistency to the claims.
Claim 18 states “wherein the pack housing further includes a pack cover configured to cover the plurality of battery assemblies and coupled to the unit frame assembly” when it should state “wherein the pack housing further includes a pack cover coupled to the unit frame assembly and configured to cover the plurality of battery assemblies” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 13, and 16-17 (and thus their dependents) are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the battery assembly" and “the unit frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which battery assembly of “each battery assembly of the plurality of battery assemblies” is “the battery assembly. It is unclear which unit frame of the “plurality of unit frames” is “the unit frame”.
Given claims 2-18 depend from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation "the sidewall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which sidewall of “the plurality of unit frames” is being referred to.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “wherein each unit frame has a stepped portion at the end portion of the base having a shape matching a shape of a front end portion of the base, and wherein the front end portion of the base of a subsequent unit frame is coupled to the stepped portion”.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which recites “wherein an end portion of the base in one unit frame is coupled to an end portion of the base in an adjacent unit frame to couple the unit frames in the first direction and form the unit frame assembly”.
Claim 1 recites the end portion of the base in one unit frame is coupled to the end portion of the base in an adjacent unit frame.
Claim 3 recites that each unit frame comprises the end portion having a stepped portion and a front end portion of the base.
It is unclear if adjacent unit frames are coupled together via the end portions having a stepped portion (as claim 1 states “end portion”(s) of the base in adjacent unit frames are coupled and claim 3 states “the end portion” has the stepped portion) or if the end portion having a stepped portion in one unit frame is coupled to a front end portion of the base in an adjacent unit frame (as claim 3 states the end portion of the base of one unit frame can be coupled to the front end portion of a base of a subsequent unit frame).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitations “the end portion of the base” and “the sidewall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which end portion of which base of the “plurality of unit frames” is being referred to. It is unclear which sidewall of the “plurality of unit frames” is being referred to.
Claims 9-10 depend from claim 8 and also refer to “the sidewall”.
Claims 9-10 depend from claim 8, therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitations "the battery assembly" and “the base”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which battery assembly of the “plurality of battery assemblies” is being referred to. It is unclear which base of the “plurality of unit frames” is being referred to.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation "the front-rear direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “the front-rear direction” to be “the second direction”, similar to how claim 16 has been amended.
Given claim 17 depends from claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “…the battery assemblies in each column are accommodated in each unit frame such that the lower surface of each of the battery assembly is supported on one base of each unit frame and each of both side surfaces of each of the battery assembly is supported on the sidewalls of each of the adjacent unit frames that are opposite to each other and are disposed in the second direction.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the battery assembly” in the claim.
Further, it is unclear how “both side surfaces of each of the battery assembly” can be supported on the sidewalls of each of the adjacent unit frames that are opposite to each other and are disposed in the second direction”.
Claim 1, of which claim 16 depends, sets forth the plurality of battery assemblies are supported on the base of each unit frame, the base of each unit frame extends in a first direction, and an end portion of the base of one unit frame is coupled to an end portion of the base in an adjacent unit frame in a first direction.
Therefore, from claim 1, adjacent unit frames that are opposite to each other would be disposed in the first direction, not the second direction as stated in claim 16.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner will apply prior art to the best of their ability in view of the clarity issues.
Given claim 17 depends from claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation "the bases of the unit frames". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the bases of the unit frames is meant to be the bases of all of the plurality of unit frames in the battery pack or if the bases of the unit frames is meant to be only some of the plurality of unit frames in the battery pack.
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)(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.
Claims 1-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reimer et al (DE102018216901A1, given in the 12/12/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Reimer discloses a battery pack (battery module 10 in Figs. 2-3; see entire disclosure and especially P92-99) comprising:
a plurality of battery assemblies (a battery assembly can be drawn to two battery cells 41, 42 in Fig. 1; a plurality of battery assemblies can be seen in Figs. 2-3; see entire disclosure and especially P70, 77); and
a pack housing configured to accommodate the plurality of battery assemblies (see Figs. 2-3),
wherein the pack housing includes a unit frame assembly, comprising a plurality of unit frames (battery holder/receptacles 2 in Figs. 1-3; see entire disclosure and especially P71-73),
each unit frame of the plurality of unit frames including a sidewall (the sidewall can be drawn to the combination of the upper one of the first receptacle walls 21 and second receptacle wall 22 in Fig. 1) and a base extending in a first direction from a lower end portion of the sidewall (lower one of first receptacle walls 21 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P72-73),
wherein an end portion of the base in one unit frame is coupled to an end portion of the base in an adjacent unit frame to couple the unit frames in the first direction and form the unit frame assembly (a first connecting element 5 in a lower one of the first receptacle walls 21 in one battery holder/receptacle 2 can be coupled to a second connecting element 6 in another lower one of the first receptacle walls 21 in an adjacent battery holder/receptacle 2; see Figs. 1-3; see entire disclosure and especially P78-83),
a front frame coupled to a front end of the unit frame assembly in a second direction (one of the cooling plates / cover 12 in Fig. 2 or one of the additional structural elements 14 in Fig. 3; see entire disclosure and especially P96 and 99), and
a rear frame coupled to a rear end of the unit frame assembly in the second direction (one of the cooling plates / cover 12 in Fig. 2 that is not drawn to the front frame or one of the additional structural elements 14 in Fig. 3 that is not drawn to the front frame; see entire disclosure and especially P96 and 99), and
wherein each battery assembly of the plurality of battery assemblies is accommodated in a respective unit frame such that a lower surface of the battery assembly is supported on the base of the unit frame and side surfaces of the battery assembly are supported on the sidewalls of adjacent unit frames (see Fig. 1 and entire disclosure and especially P77).
Regarding claim 2, Reimer discloses wherein a height of the sidewall is greater than a height of the respective battery assembly (the sidewall can be drawn to the combination of the upper one of the first receptacle walls 21 and second receptacle wall 22 in Fig. 1; as seen in Fig. 1, the height of the combination of both is greater than the height of the two battery cells 41/42).
Regarding claim 3, Reimer discloses wherein each unit frame has a stepped portion at the end portion of the base having a shape matching a shape of a front end portion of the base, and wherein the front end portion of the base of a subsequent unit frame is coupled to the stepped portion (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Reimer Fig. 3
Regarding claim 4, Reimer discloses a first side frame coupled to the base of a foremost unit frame of the unit frame assembly in the first direction (one of end plates 13 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P97; see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Reimer Fig. 2
Regarding claim 5, Reimer discloses wherein side surfaces of a battery assembly in the foremost unit frame are supported on the first side frame and the sidewall of the foremost unit frame (see Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 6, Reimer discloses a second side frame coupled to the sidewall of a rearmost unit frame of the unit frame assembly in the first direction (one of end plates 13 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P97; see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
528
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Reimer Fig. 2
Regarding claim 7, Reimer discloses wherein a width of the sidewall of a rearmost unit frame of the unit frame assembly in the first direction is equal to a width of the first side frame. (the end plates 13 are disclosed to be designed exactly like the battery module subunits 1 but without the battery cells 4 therein; therefore, it can be said that the width of the sidewall of a rearmost unit frame of the unit frame assembly in the first direction is equal to a width of the first side frame; see entire disclosure and especially P97; the Examiner notes that while the width of the sidewall of the rearmost unit frame is denoted to be in the first direction in claim 7, the width of the first side frame is not denoted to be in any specific direction).
Regarding claim 8, Reimer discloses wherein a foremost unit frame of the unit frame assembly further includes a second sidewall at the end portion of the base opposite to the side wall (one of end plates 13 can couple to the foremost unit frame in Fig. 2, see annotated Fig. below; therefore, since the two can be joined/coupled, it can be said the foremost unit frame “includes” a second sidewall (end plate 13) at the end portion of the base opposite to the sidewall; see entire disclosure and especially P97).
PNG
media_image4.png
492
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Reimer Fig. 2
Regarding claim 9, Reimer discloses wherein side surfaces of a battery assembly in the foremost unit frame are supported by the sidewall and the second sidewall (see Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 18, Reimer discloses wherein the pack housing further includes a pack cover configured to cover the plurality of battery assemblies and coupled to the unit frame assembly (cover element that can be arranged instead of cooling plate 12 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P62, 96).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimer et al (DE102018216901A1, given in the 12/12/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Jiang et al (US 20210126318 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Reimer does not disclose wherein a width of the second sidewall is greater than a width of the sidewall (given the end plates 13 are disclosed to be designed exactly like the battery module subunits 1 but without the battery cells 4 therein, P97; the Examiner notes the width is not specified in any particular direction as it is in dependent claim 7).
In a similar field of endeavor, Jiang teaches end plates and side plates of battery modules can have their structural strength increased by increasing the thickness of the plates (P3).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Jiang and increased a width of the second side wall to be greater than a width of the sidewall by increasing the thickness/width of the second sidewall, given the second sidewall is an end/side plate of the battery pack of Reimer and Jiang teaches increasing the thickness of an end/side plate can increase its structural strength.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimer et al (DE102018216901A1, given in the 12/12/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Miyazaki et al (US 20150349326 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Reimer does not disclose wherein a distance between sidewalls of the adjacent unit frames of the unit frame assembly is less than a width of each battery assembly.
In a similar field of endeavor, Miyazaki teaches during a battery cycle test, to prevent the expansion of a battery, a battery can be compressed within a distance less than the initial thickness of the battery by metal plates (P128).
While Miyazaki is drawn to compressing a battery during a cycle test rather than compressing battery assemblies between adjacent unit frame, if a technique has been used to improve one device (provide a battery to be compressed by two metal plates within a distance smaller than the thickness of the battery to prevent expansion of the battery), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (provide a battery assembly to be compressed by two sidewalls within a distance smaller than the thickness of the battery assembly to prevent expansion of the battery assembly), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. SEE MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Miyazaki and modified the distance between sidewalls of the adjacent unit frames of the unit frame assembly of Reimer to be less than a width of each battery assembly of Reimer, given Miyazaki teaches this can prevent expansion of a battery cell and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this would prevent the expansion of the battery cell assemblies. Further, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, Reimer discloses wherein each battery assembly of the plurality of battery assemblies includes at least one buffer pad between stacked battery cells (compensating element 7 sits between the two battery cells 41, 42 in Fig. 1; the compensating element can be an inserted foam material; see entire disclosure and especially P34, 86).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimer et al (DE102018216901A1, given in the 12/12/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Khan Academy (What is thermal conductivity?, hereinafter referred to as “Khan”).
Regarding claim 13, Reimer discloses wherein a heat transfer member is provided between each battery assembly of the plurality of battery assemblies and a side wall of a respective unit frame of the plurality of unit frames (thermally conductive adhesive layer; see entire disclosure and especially P28-29, 85).
However, Reimer does not disclose wherein a heat transfer member is provided between each battery assembly of the plurality of battery assemblies and a base of a respective unit frame of the plurality of unit frames.
Khan teaches the transfer of heat between two objects in contact is thermal conduction (page 1). Khan teaches there are four factors that affect the rate at which heat is conductive through a material (Q/t): the thermal conductivity constant for the material (k), a cross-sectional area of the material transferring heat (A), the difference in temperature between one side of the material and another (T1-T2), and the thickness of the material (d, page 3). Khan gives the equation for the rate of thermal conduction:
Q
t
=
k
A
(
T
h
o
t
-
T
c
o
l
d
)
d
(page 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this equation and realize, from this equation, that the rate of heat conduction is directly proportional to the cross-sectional area (surface area).
Therefore, while Reimer does not disclose wherein a heat transfer member is provided between each battery assembly of the plurality of battery assemblies and a base of a respective unit frame of the plurality of unit frames, this is merely changing the form/shape of the heat transfer member to extend the heat transfer member (thermally conductive adhesive layer) to be between both the sidewall of a respective unit frame of the plurality of unit frames and the base of a respective unit frame of the plurality of unit frames. It would be obvious to change the form/shape of the heat transfer member like so in order to, allow the battery assemblies to be further secured to their respective unit frames via the heat transfer member and increase the cross-sectional area at which the battery assemblies are attached to their respective unit frame, thereby increasing the heat conduction between the battery assemblies and their respective unit frames, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimer et al (DE102018216901A1, given in the 12/12/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kritzer et al (US 20230238632 A1)
Regarding claims 14-15, Reimer discloses wherein the front frame and the rear frame can be cooling plates (P96).
However, Reimer does not disclose wherein the base of each unit frame of the plurality of unit frames has a cooling passage therein (claim 14) and wherein the front frame and the rear frame each have a cooling passage communicating with the cooling passage of each unit frame of the plurality of unit frames (claim 15).
In a similar field of endeavor, Kritzer teaches an energy storage system comprising a housing (2 in Fig. 1) in which a plurality of battery cells (3 in Fig. 1) are arranged on top of a cooling apparatus (7 in Fig. 1; see Fig. 1; P40, 42). Kritzer teaches the cooling apparatus includes a cooling medium to absorb heat during normal operation (P26-27).
Kritzer teaches the battery cells are spaced with respect to each other by means of a device (4 in Fig. 1; P41). Kritzer teaches the device includes an emergency cooling channel (6 in Fig. 1) that can communicate with the cooling medium in the cooling apparatus upon an emergency condition (P36, 42). Kritzer teaches that during an emergency condition where a battery cell is overheating, the emergency cooling channel can receive a cooling medium from the cooling apparatus to absorb the heat of the overheating battery cell (P26-27, 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kritzer and modified each unit frame of the plurality of unit frames of Reimer such that the base and sidewalls include an emergency cooling channel/passage and wherein the front frame and the rear frame of Reimer each have cooling passages wherein cooling medium flows and can communicate with the emergency cooling channel of each unit frame of the plurality of unit frames, given Kritzer teaches this can cool the battery cells during normal operation and cool the battery cells during an emergency condition when at least one of the battery cells overheat.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reimer et al (DE102018216901A1, given in the 12/12/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lambourne et al (US 20220255162 A1) and Maguire et al (US 20230307756 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Reimer does not disclose wherein each unit frame of the plurality of unit frames includes two or more sidewalls positioned in a line at a predetermined interval in the second direction and one base that extends in the first direction from the lower end portion of each sidewall and is elongated in the second direction, the plurality of battery assemblies are disposed in two or more columns in the second direction to correspond to the number of sidewalls, and the battery assemblies in each column are accommodated in each unit frame such that the lower surface of each of the battery assembly is supported on one base of each unit frame and each of both side surfaces of each of the battery assembly is supported on the sidewalls of each of the adjacent unit frames that are opposite to each other and are disposed in the second direction.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lambourne teaches battery modules can include a large number of battery cells connected together (P49). Lambourne teaches the battery cells are typically arranged in an array/row to provide structure and ease of connection (P49). Lambourne teaches increasing the number of rows increases the charge capacity and the terminal voltage of the module (P50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and utilized the teaching of Lambourne and duplicated Reimer’s plurality of battery assemblies and their respective unit frames, thereby duplicating the row of battery module subunits 1 in Figs. 2-3 of Reimer, such that the plurality of battery assemblies are disposed in two or more columns in the second direction, given Lambourne teaches one can increase the number of arrays/rows of battery cells in a battery module to increase the charge capacity and the terminal voltage of the module. Further, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
From this modification, modified Reimer includes a unit frame for each battery assembly within each row of battery assemblies, rather than a unit frame being provided for each set of two or more battery cell assemblies that are adjacent in the second direction as is desired by claim 16.
However, this is merely integrating the unit frames of the two or more battery cell assemblies that are adjacent in the second direction into a single unit frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the unit frames of the two or more battery cell assemblies that are adjacent in the second direction into a single unit frame in order to, for example, lessen manufacturing time and cost by only having to make a single unit frame rather than form two or more separate unit frames, because the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, modified Reimer meets the limitations wherein each unit frame of the plurality of unit frames includes one base that extends in the first direction from the lower end portion of each sidewall and is elongated in the second direction, the plurality of battery assemblies are disposed in two or more columns in the second direction, and the battery assemblies in each column are accommodated in each unit frame such that the lower surface of each of the battery assembly is supported on one base of each unit frame.
However, modified Reimer does not meet the limitation wherein the unit frame includes two or more sidewalls positioned in a line at a predetermined interval in the second direction, wherein the plurality of battery assemblies are disposed in two or more columns in the second direction to correspond to the number of sidewalls, wherein the side surfaces of each of the battery assemblies are supported on the sidewalls of each of the adjacent unit frames.
In a similar field of endeavor, Maguire teaches a traction battery pack that can include multiple stacks of battery cells (see Figs 2-3 and P43-46). Maguire teaches one of more cell row separators (48 in Figs. 2-4) can be positioned between each adjacent pair of cell stacks (P57). Maguire teaches the cell row separators provide various functions such as maintaining that the battery cells of adjacent cell stacks are spaced apart from one another, adding stiffness, and providing a common datum reference point for aligning battery cells of each stack (P58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Maguire and provided one or more cell row separators to the two or more columns of plurality of battery row assemblies of modified Reimer, given Maguire teaches the cell row separators provide various functions such as maintaining that the battery cells of adjacent cell stacks are spaced apart from one another, adding stiffness, and providing a common datum reference point for aligning battery cells of each stack.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a space in the single side walls of the unit frames of modified Reimer would need to be formed in order to provide the at least one cell row separator between the two or more columns of the plurality of battery assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the form/shape or separated the single side wall of the unit frame of modified Reimer such that the unit frame includes two or more sidewalls positioned in a line at a predetermined interval in the second direction in order to, for example, provide room between the two or more columns of the plurality of battery assemblies for the at least one cell row separator of Maguire to be placed in-between the two or more columns for the benefits of the at least one cell row separator as taught by Maguire, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04) and the Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 17, modified Reimer meets the limitation a center frame that is positioned in an interval between the sidewalls spaced apart from each other in the second direction to separate the battery assemblies into column units, extends along the bases of the unit frames in the lateral direction, and is coupled to the unit frame assembly (the center frame can be drawn to the at least one cell row separator of Maguire as it would sit between the columns of battery assemblies on the bases of the unit frame, in the opening provided by the change in form/shape / separation of the single side wall into at least two side walls; further, Maguire teaches the at least one cell row separator can be secured to a cell stack via a two-sided adhesive tape, P8, 20, 65; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would also choose to use a two-sided adhesive tape to adhere the at least one cell row separator of modified Reimer to the battery cell assemblies in order to secure the structures together; given the at least one cell row separator of modified Reimer is adhered/coupled to the battery assemblies of modified Reimer, and the battery assemblies of modified Reimer are adhered/coupled to the unit frame assemblies (Reimer 85), then the at least one cell row separator of modified Reimer is coupled to the unit frame assemblies).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chi et al (US 20190326569 A1) – see Figs. 2-9
Tissot et al (US 20250343316 A1) – see Figs. 2-5 and 8
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights