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 § 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, 4, 5, 7, 10-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ginsberg (EP 2418709 A1, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 10-12 and 17, Ginsberg teaches a battery pack comprising a plurality of packaging units 3 enclosed by a housing 4 (box) (see paragraphs 72 and 77). Each packaging unit 3 comprises a battery element 1 (battery cell) having a trapezoidal shape and a deformation element 2 (first spacer; second spacer) which complements the form a cross-sectional shape which is essentially a triangle (see paragraphs 71 and 72). The deformation element 2 may comprise a hollow profile which is reinforced by at least one cross-brace (cross- beam) (see paragraph 20). The plurality of packaging units 3 are stacked in a vertical row R2 (first direction) by way of a long trapezoidal side T1 (first wall) and a short trapezoidal side T2, and in a horizontal row R1 by way of non-parallel trapezoidal sides T3 (second walls) (see paragraphs 64 and 80; FIGS. 3A, 3B and 4).
Regarding claim 5, there exists a number of planar orientations which intersect the non-parallel trapezoidal sides T3 of adjacent battery elements 1 along vertical row R2.
Regarding claim 7, a thickness direction of the battery elements 1 may be assigned arbitrarily and may thus coincide with the direction of vertical row R2 (thickness direction parallel to the first direction).
Regarding claim 13, Ginsberg teaches that the deformation elements 2 may be considered to have a trapezoidal shape with a very short outer trapezoidal side (see paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 14, it is understood that the number of deformation elements 2 of Ginsberg is dependent upon the number of battery elements 1. Ginsberg teaches that it may be possible to arrange only battery elements in one row and only deformation elements in an adjacent parallel row, wherein in a parallel sequence of such rows, for example after n rows of battery elements, a row of deformation elements follows, where n can be a number greater than or equal to 1 (see paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 15, the side surfaces of the housing 4 may constitute the end plate as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Ginsberg teaches that the battery pack may provide energy for an electrically powered vehicle (see paragraph 5).
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.
Claims 8, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginsberg as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10-15, 17 and 20 above. Regarding claim 8, the battery elements 1 of Ginsberg include end surfaces (third walls) in a direction perpendicular to both rows R1 and R2. Although Ginsberg does not explicitly teach that terminals are disposed on one of these end surfaces, it is well within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to locate external terminals according to preference or convenience. The courts have held that the rearrangement of parts is likely to be obvious when doing so would not have modified the operation of the device. See In re Japikse 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 195) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 16, it has been held by the courts that 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 claims 18 and 19, although Ginsberg does not explicitly teach thermal management components, it is well known in the art to provide cooling plates between rows or columns of cells within a battery pack.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginsberg as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10-15, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of Saijo et al. (hereinafter “Saijo”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0099729 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ginsberg is silent as to a parallelogram cross section in which two first walls are parallel to each other and two second walls are parallel to each other.
Saijo teaches that a plurality of battery modules 100 having a case 110 of a parallelogram shape can be aligned with one another to effectively utilize a limited space (see paragraphs 39 and 42; FIG. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the parallelogram shape of Saijo to the battery elements of Ginsberg because it has been held by the courts that 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights