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 § 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 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-3, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2004/071173, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Matsushita discloses in Figs 1-17, a battery module ([0011], [0067]) comprising: n cells (refs 70A-D, Fig 7 below, “N-cells”), the cell (refs 70A-D) having a plurality of surfaces (Fig 7), one of at least two of the surfaces (Figs 1, 7) being provided with a first positive terminal (one of ref 25) and a first negative terminal (one of ref 40); and another one of the at least two of the surfaces (Figs 1, 7) being provided with a second positive terminal (another of ref 25) and a second negative terminal (another of ref 40), wherein the n cells (refs 70A-D) are arranged side by side and are connected in series ([0033]), the first negative terminal (of refs 40) of a (k-1)th cell (cells 70A-D, Fig 7, connected in series, [0033]) is connected to the first positive terminal (of refs 25) of a kth cell (cells 70A-D, Fig 7, connected in series, [0033]), the first negative terminal (of refs 40) of the kth cell (cells 70A-D, Fig 7, connected in series, [0033]) is connected to the first positive terminal (of refs 25) of a (k+1)th cell (cells 70A-D, Fig 7, connected in series, [0033]), the second negative terminal (of refs 40) of the (k-1)th (cells 70A-D, Fig 7, connected in series, [0033]) is connected to the second positive terminal (of refs 25) of the kth cell (cells 70A-D, Fig 7, connected in series, [0033]), and the second negative terminal (of refs 40) of the kth cell (cells 70A-D, Fig 7, connected in series, [0033]) is connected to the second positive terminal (of refs 25) of the (k+1)th cell (cells 70A-D, Fig 7, connected in series, [0033]), where 2≤k≤n-1 and n≤3 (4 cells depicted, refs 70A-D)
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific length and thickness and associated ratios of the cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the length and thickness of the cell, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the size of the individual battery cells and overall battery module may vary depending on intended end use output requirements ([0033], [0057], [0002]) and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of individual battery cells.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Matsushita discloses in Figs 1-17, a battery module ([0011], [0067]), comprising: two cells ([0033], two cells, refs 70A-B, Fig 7 above), wherein a first end plate ([0048]) of each cell (refs 70A-B) is provided with a first positive terminal (one of ref 25) and a first negative terminal (one of ref 40), and a second end plate ([0048]) of each cell (refs 70A-B) is provided with a second positive terminal (another of ref 25) and a second negative terminal (another of ref 40); and the two cells (refs 70A-B) are arranged side by side in series ([0033]), wherein the first negative terminal (one of ref 40) of a first cell (ref 70A) is connected to the first positive terminal (another of ref 25) of a second cell (ref 70B); and the second negative terminal (another of ref 40) of the first cell (ref 70A) is connected to the second positive terminal (another of ref 25) of the second cell (ref 70B).
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific length and thickness and associated ratios of the cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the length and thickness of the cell, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the size of the individual battery cells and overall battery module may vary depending on intended end use output requirements ([0033], [0057], [0002]) and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of individual battery cells.
Regarding claim 2, modified Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the cell (ref 70A) has a first end surface and a second end surface (Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7, top and bottom ends depicted), and the first end surface and the second end surface are opposite to each other (Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7, top and bottom ends depicted), the first positive terminal (ref 25) and the first negative terminal (ref 40) of the cell (ref 70A) are provided on the first end surface (top, Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7), and the second positive terminal (another of ref 25) and the second negative terminal (another of ref 40) of the cell (ref 70A) are provided on the second end surface (bottom, Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, modified Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the cell (100) comprises: a housing ([0025], [0033], ref 60) and a core ([0038], ref 10) located inside the housing ([0025], [0033], ref 60), in which the housing ([0025], [0033], ref 60) has a first end surface and a second end surface (top, bottom, Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7), where the first positive terminal (one of ref 25) and the first negative terminal (one of ref 40) are provided on the first end surface (top end, Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7), and the second positive terminal (another of ref 25) and the second negative terminal (another of ref 40) are provided on the second end surface (bottom end, Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7); and the core (ref 10) has a first end and a second end (Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7), where a plurality of first positive tabs (refs 28 of each cell) and first negative tabs (refs 43 of each cell) extend from the first end, the plurality of first positive tabs (refs 28 of each cell) are respectively connected to the first positive terminals (one of refs 25), and the plurality of first negative tabs (refs 43 of each cell) are respectively connected to the first negative terminals (refs 40); and a plurality of second positive tabs (refs 33 of each cell) and second negative tabs (refs 47 of each cell) extend from the second end (bottom Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7), the plurality of second positive tabs (refs 28 bottom) are respectively connected to the second positive terminals (another of refs 25), and the plurality of second negative tabs (refs 40 bottom) are respectively connected to the second negative terminals (another of refs 40).
Regarding claim 12, modified Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the electrode plate in the core further comprises a current collector (refs 12, 16), and the positive tab (refs 28, 33) or negative tab (refs 43, 47) is integrated with ([0040]) the corresponding current collector (refs 12, 16).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2004/071173, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Abe (US 2002/0070704).
Regarding claim 4, modified Matsushita et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose a first end plate and a second end plate opposite to each other are respectively provided at two ends of the housing, where the first positive terminal and the first negative terminal are provided on the first end plate, and extend through the first end plate; and the second positive terminal and the second negative terminal are provided on the second end plate.
Abe discloses in Figs 1-9, a battery module (ref 3) including end plates (refs 6, 7) connecting positive and negative terminals together on each, respectively ([0042]). This configuration enhances the overall structure of the battery ([0042]).
Abe and Matsushita are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the end plates of Abe into the structure of Matsushita to enhance the overall structural integrity of the module structure.
Regarding claim 5, modified Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the core (ref 10) comprises a plurality of sub-cores ([0040]), and each of the sub-cores ([0040]) comprises a positive electrode plate (ref 11), an insulating separator (refs 21, 22), and a negative electrode plate (ref 15), where the positive electrode plate (ref 11) is electrically connected with a positive tab (refs 28, 33), and the negative electrode plate (ref 15) is electrically connected with a negative tab (refs 43, 47); and adjacent tabs (Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7, stacked) in two adjacent sub-cores ([0040]) are located on two opposite sides in a width direction (Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7) of the cell (ref 70A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2004/071173, see Machine Translation) in view of Abe (US 2002/0070704) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (US 2006/0088761).
Regarding claim 6, modified Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plurality of sub cores ([0040]) are stacked along a thickness direction of the cell (Figs 1, 4A, 6, 7), but does not explicitly disclose the positive tab and negative tab of each of the sub cores are staggered along the width direction of the cell.
Ota et al. discloses in Figs 1-50, a battery module (ref 50) including a plurality of stacked cells (refs 220) including positive electrode tabs (refs 222) and negative electrode tabs (refs 224) alternated along a width of the structure ([0140]). This configuration enhances the overall structural integrity of the module ([0140]).
Ota et al. and Matsushita are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the staggered / alternating structure of Ota et al. into the tab structural arrangement of Matsushita to enhance the overall structural integrity of the module.
Claims 7-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2004/071173, see Machine Translation) in view of Abe (US 2002/0070704) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Amagai (US 2007/0141457).
Regarding claims 7-10 and 19-20, modified Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose at least two insulating spacers, respectively, arranged between the first end plate and the core or between the second end plate of the core, and used to space the positive tab and the negative tab apart, the insulating spacer has an isolating plate extending toward the core, and the isolating plate is a plurality of plates located between the positive and negative tabs, the isolating plates arranged at intervals along a direction of the tabs, the insulating spacer defines multiple avoidance holes, the tabs adapted to extend there through to connect to the corresponding terminal.
Amagai discloses in Figs 1-40, a battery module (ref 50) including a plurality of stacked battery cells ([0056]), each cell having positive and negative electrodes each having tabs (refs 101-108p and 101-108m) connected thereto ([0056]). Insulating spacers sheet-like in structure (refs 110) between each of the positive and negative electrodes provide electrical insulation between the tabs ([0057]) and insulating covers (refs 91, 92, [0057]) located at intervals with respect to one another and the tabs ([0057]) further enhance the insulation ([0057]). Further the cover structures include holes / slots (refs 95, Fig 5) for tabs (refs 101) to extend there through (Fig 5).
Amagai and Matsushita are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the spacers and insulating covers in the configuration of Amagai into the structure of Matsushita to electrically insulate the tabs and enhance insulation of the overall structure.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2004/071173, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2012/0328934).
Regarding claim 11, Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose 35% ≤ H1/H2 ≤ 45% (tab : plate width ratio).
Watanabe et al. discloses in Figs 1-15, a battery device (ref 10) including negative electrode tab having a width of 50 mm ([0109]) and a negative plate having a width of 143 mm ([0106]). This configuration enhances the structural integrity and performance of the battery ([0106], [0109]).
Watanabe et al. and Matsushita are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the tab:plate width ratio disclosed by Watanabe et al. into the structure of Matsushita to enhance structural integrity and overall performance of the module.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2004/071173, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiamitsu et al. (US 2004/0038122).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Matsushita discloses in Figs 1-17, a battery module ([0011], [0067]) as set forth above utilized as a power source for electronic device ([0011], [0067]), but does not disclose a battery pack casing with the module mounted inside powering a vehicle.
Hiamitsu et al. discloses in Figs 1-9, a battery module (Abstract) including a module comprising a plurality of battery cells ([0015]) disposed in a casing ([0015]) and utilized to power a vehicle ([0015]). This configuration provides increased power able to power an electric or hybrid vehicle ([0015]).
Hiamitsu et al. and Matsushita are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the battery module of Matsushita into a housing to power a vehicle as disclosed by Hiamitsu et al.
Regarding claim 15, modified Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the battery pack casing ([0025], [0033], ref 60) is filled with a thermally conductive insulating layer encasing ([0031]-[0033], [0046], [0048]) the battery module.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 2004/071173, see Machine Translation) in view of Abe (US 2002/0070704) and Ota et al. (US 2006/0088761) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Amagai (US 2007/0141457).
Regarding claim 18, modified Matsushita discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose at least two insulating spacers, respectively, arranged between the first end plate and the core or between the second end plate of the core, and used to space the positive tab and the negative tab apart
Amagai discloses in Figs 1-40, a battery module (ref 50) including a plurality of stacked battery cells ([0056]), each cell having positive and negative electrodes each having tabs (refs 101-108p and 101-108m) connected thereto ([0056]). Insulating spacers sheet-like in structure (refs 110) between each of the positive and negative electrodes provide electrical insulation between the tabs ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the spacers in the configuration of Amagai into the structure of Matsushita to electrically insulate the tabs and enhance insulation of the overall structure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,212,018. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘018 patent anticipate the instant claims.
Further, while the ‘018 patent does not explicitly disclose the specific length and thickness and associated ratios of the cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the length and thickness of the cell, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the size of the individual battery cells and overall battery module may vary depending on intended end use output requirements and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of individual battery cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached on 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725