DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 10 is objected to because of the following informality:
Line 2 of claim 10 should recite “a plurality of position regulating protrusions”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites “wherein at least a portion of the at least one position regulating protrusion is inserted into the inner area…”. Claim 6 depends from claim 5, which already recites “wherein an end of the at least one position regulating protrusion is in an inner area”. Since claim 5 already recites that an end of the least one position regulating protrusion is in an inner area, claim 6 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 5, because “at least a portion of” may correspond to “an end of” which is already present in an inner area. The language “is inserted into the inner area” is essentially equivalent to “is in the inner area”.
Claims 7-9 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20220055777 A (Kim ‘777 – citing to the attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘777 teaches a battery pack (a battery pack including a battery cell fixing structure; [0031]), comprising:
cylindrical battery cells (cylindrical battery cells; [0043]), each of the cylindrical battery cells including an electrode (a jelly roll-shaped electrode assembly 250 contained inside a cylindrical battery can 210; [0045]) and an outer circumferential surface with a beading unit depressed into the outer circumferential surface to define a bottleneck in an inner direction of the outer circumferential surface (a beading portion 230 concavely provided at the tip of one side of the battery can 210 at an outer circumferential surface thereof; Figs. 2 & 3); and
PNG
media_image1.png
344
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
514
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a cell holder (a cell frame 100 including lower plate 110 and upper frame 120; [0037] & Figs. 1 & 2) including fixing supporters configured to support the cylindrical battery cells (a plurality of cell holders 300 for supporting the outer surfaces of the cylindrical battery cells 200; [0051]; Figs. 2 & 8), each of the fixing supporters covering at least a portion of the outer circumferential surface of a corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells (each of the cell holders 300 cover at least a portion of the outer surface of a corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells 200; Fig. 8), and each of the fixing supporters including at least one position regulating protrusion protruding toward the beading unit of the corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells (multiple insertion protrusions 400 are formed protruding from the outer surface of each of the plurality of cell holders 300 so as to be inserted into and coupled with the beading portion 230 on the outer surface of the cylindrical cells 200 surrounding each of the plurality of cell holders 300; [0054] & Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one position regulating protrusion is at a same level as the beading unit based on a longitudinal direction of each of the cylindrical battery cells (the plurality of fitting protrusions 400 and the beading portions 230 of the plurality of battery cells 200 can be positioned at the same height; [0059] & Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one position regulating protrusion protrudes from each of the fixing supporters in a direction crossing a longitudinal direction of each of the cylindrical battery cells (the plurality of fitting protrusions 400 are formed to protrude horizontally from the curved surface 301 from each of the plurality of cell holders 300, crossing the longitudinal direction of each of the cylindrical battery cells 200; [0059]; Figs. 5 & 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
352
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 3, wherein the at least one position regulating protrusion protrudes from each of the fixing supporters toward a central axis of the corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells (the plurality of fitting protrusions 400 are formed to protrude horizontally from the curved surface 301 from each of the plurality of cell holders 300, toward a central axis of each of the cylindrical battery cells 200; [0059]; Figs. 5 & 8).
Regarding claim 5, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 4, wherein an end of the at least one position regulating protrusion is in an inner area of the outer circumferential surface of the corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells (the ends of the insertion protrusions 400 are inserted into and coupled with the beading portion 230 on the outer surface of the cylindrical cells 200; [0054]; Figs. 8 & 9).
Regarding claim 6, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 5, wherein at least a portion of the least one position regulating protrusion is inserted into the inner area of the outer circumferential surface of the corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells (the insertion protrusions 400 are inserted into and coupled with the beading portion 230 on the outer surface of the cylindrical cells 200; [0054]; Figs. 8 & 9).
Regarding claim 7, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 6, wherein at least a portion of the least one position regulating protrusion contacts at least a portion of the beading unit (the insertion protrusions 400 are in contact with the beading portions 230; [0054]; Figs. 8 & 9).
Regarding claim 8, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, wherein the least one position regulating protrusion is insertable into the beading unit (the insertion protrusions 400 are inserted into and coupled with the beading portion 230 on the outer surface of the cylindrical cells 200; [0054]; Figs. 8 & 9).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20220055777 A (Kim ‘777 – citing to the attached English translation) in view of US 20140045038 A1 (Kimura ‘038).
Regarding claim 9, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 8, wherein:
the beading unit has a first width in the longitudinal direction of each of the cylindrical battery cells, and (as shown in Fig. 3, the beading portion 230 has a defined width in the longitudinal direction of each of the cylindrical cells 200; [0045]).
As shown in Figs. 8 and 9, the insertion protrusion 400 appears to have a width sized and shaped to fit within the beading portion 230. Thus, Kim ‘777 does not appear to teach that insertion protrusion 400 has a second width in the longitudinal direction of each of the cylindrical battery cells, the second width being greater than the first width.
PNG
media_image4.png
374
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
480
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kimura ‘038 discloses a fixing plate 3 having a fixing plate opening portion 31 at the position opposite to each of the cells 2 ([0032]). The fixing plate 3, has on its one face, the hook portion 32 formed to protrude toward the cell 2 ([0032]). The hook portion 32 has on its tip, a protrusion 32A formed to protrude toward the fixing plate opening portion 31 when viewed from the longitudinal direction of the cell 2 ([0032]). The hook portion 32 engages with the protruding portion 21A of the battery case 21 of the cell 2 when the cell 2 is pushed to the fixing plate opening portion 31 of the fixing plate 3, as shown in Figs. 2 & 4 ([0035]).
The protrusion 32A of the hook portion 32 has an outer second width greater than the inner first width of the protruding portion 21A, because the width of the protrusion 32A increases from the inner area of the protruding portion 21A to the outer area of the cell 2. Thus, the protrusion 32A may have an outer second width that is greater than the inner first width of the protruding portion 21A.
When the cell 2 is subjected to a force around the axis, a friction force acts between the protruding portion 21A and the hook portion 32 to suppress the rotation of the cell 2 around the axis ([0035]). This can avoid a poor connection between the cell 2 and the bus bar 4 ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the size and shape of the insertion protrusion 400, as taught by Kim ‘777, to have a second width greater than the inner first width, to suppress the rotation of the cell by providing a friction force acting between the beading portion 230 and insertion protrusion 400, as suggested by Kimura ‘038.
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 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 10, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one position regulating protrusion includes a plurality of regulating protrusions arranged around a central axis of the corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells.
Kimura ‘038 discloses a fixing plate 3 having a fixing plate opening portion 31 at the position opposite to each of the cells 2 ([0032]). A hook portion 35 is formed on an inner face of the fixing plate opening portion 31 ([0041] & Fig. 6). A plurality of hook portions 35 are formed in the circumferential direction of the fixing plate opening portion 31, and the adjacent hook portions are spaced at equal intervals ([0041] & Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image6.png
416
398
media_image6.png
Greyscale
When the cell 2 is subjected to a force around the axis, a friction force acts between the protruding portion 21A and the hook portion 32 to suppress the rotation of the cell 2 around the axis ([0042]). This can avoid a poor connection between the cell 2 and the bus bar 4 ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cell holders 300, as taught by Kim ‘777, to include a plurality of insertion protrusions 400 spaced at equal intervals around the outer circumference of the corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells, to suppress the rotation of the cell by providing a friction force acting between the beading portion 230 and insertion protrusion 400, as suggested by Kimura ‘038.
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).
Regarding claim 11, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 10, wherein the plurality of position regulating protrusions are spaced apart at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction of the outer circumferential surface of the corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells (a plurality of hook portions 35 are formed in the circumferential direction of the fixing plate opening portion 31, and the adjacent hook portions are spaced at equal intervals ; [0041]; Figs. 6 & 7 of Kimura ‘038).
Regarding claim 12, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 10, wherein the plurality of position regulating protrusions are arranged symmetrically with respect to the central axis of the corresponding one of the cylindrical battery cells (a plurality of hook portions 35 are formed in the circumferential direction of the fixing plate opening portion 31, and the adjacent hook portions are spaced at equal intervals; [0041]; Figs. 6 & 7 of Kimura ‘038).
Regarding claim 13, Kim ‘777 teaches the battery pack as claimed in claim 10, wherein the plurality of position regulating protrusions include at least three position regulating protrusions (there appear to be 6 hook portions 35 shown in Figs. 3 & 7 of Kimura ‘038).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2022260306 A1 (Lee ‘532 – citing to US 20240014532 A1 as an English translation) discloses a battery cell fixing device 10 including three holder units 100A, 100B, and 100C ([0048]). As the number of holder units 100 increases, the effect of fixing the cylindrical battery cell C may be increased ([0049]). The holder unit 100 includes a holder body 110 and a beading fixing unit 120 ([0050] & Figs. 1 to 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights