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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houchin-Miller et al. (US 2010/0047682A1).
Regarding claim 1, Houchin-Miller discloses a battery (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-30), comprising:
a plurality of battery units, the plurality of battery units being arranged in parallel in one layer or a plurality of layers (plurality of cells 12 [0045], Fig. 6-7 show cells arranged in a plurality of layers);
a plate disposed on one side of the battery units in the one layer or in one of the plurality of layers (tray(s) 14,16,18,20 [0047]-[0058], Fig. 8-11); and
a protective cover, the protective cover having a top wall and two side walls disposed at two ends of the top wall and connected to the top wall, and the protective cover fixing at least one of the battery units each separately on the plate (top tray 22 including upper portion, protrusion, ridge or peak [0047]-[0058], Fig. 8-11 show top tray 22 having a top wall and two side walls disposed at two ends of the top wall).
Regarding claim 2, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the plurality of battery units are arranged in two layers; and the plate is disposed between the two layers (see Fig. 6-11).
Regarding claim 3, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the plate is formed as a flat or corrugated plate (Fig. 6-11 show tray(s) having a generally flat plate shape).
Regarding claim 4, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the plate is a cooling plate (includes one or more cutouts or openings 26 that are configured to facilitate a flow of a fluid 36 (for example, air, liquid, etc.) between the cells 12 of battery pack 42 [0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the top wall of the protective cover is formed as a flat plate, or a curved surface protruding away from the plate (Fig. 6-11 show top tray 22 having a generally flat plate shape).
Regarding claim 9, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the protective cover is disposed in such a way that a gap is left between the top wall of the protective cover and the battery unit surrounded by the protective cover (defines a number of discrete channels, pathways, or passages 34 (through openings in the trays as described above) for the flow of a fluid 36 (for example, air, gas, water, liquid, etc.) near and around cells 12 [0065], Fig. 22-24).
Regarding claim 10, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the protective cover is disposed in such a way that the top wall of the protective cover is in contact with the battery unit surrounded by the protective cover (cells make contact with trays [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the top wall of the protective cover is provided with a weak portion enabling a space enclosed by the protective cover to be opened under an action of pressure from inside the space (one or more cutouts or openings 26 that are configured to facilitate a flow of a fluid 36 (for example, air, liquid, etc.) between the cells 12 of battery pack 42 [0056]).
Regarding claim 12, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the weak portion comprises an indentation (Fig. 11 shows cutouts/openings 26 defining an indentation).
Regarding claim 13, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the indentation includes at least one of a linear indentation, a crossed indentation, and a U- shaped indentation (Fig. 11 shows cutouts/openings 26 defining a linear indentation).
Regarding claim 14, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses the protective cover is made of at least one of a mica plate, aerogel, and plastic (polymeric material [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Houchin-Miller further discloses an electric apparatus (vehicle [0042]), comprising the battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Houchin-Miller discloses manufacturing method of battery (method for assembling a battery module, see Title, Abstract, [0006], Fig. 1-30), comprising:
providing a plurality of battery units, the plurality of battery units being arranged in parallel in one layer or a plurality of layers (plurality of cells 12 [0045], Fig. 6-7 show cells arranged in a plurality of layers);
providing a plate, the plate being disposed on one side of the battery units in the one layer or in one of the plurality of layers (tray(s) 14,16,18,20 [0047]-[0058], Fig. 8-11); and
providing a protective cover, the protective cover having a top wall and two side walls disposed at two ends of the top wall and connected to the top wall, and the protective cover fixing at least one of the battery units each separately on the plate (top tray 22 including upper portion, protrusion, ridge or peak [0047]-[0058], Fig. 8-11 show top tray 22 having a top wall and two side walls disposed at two ends of the top wall).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houchin-Miller et al. (US 2010/0047682A1), as applied to claims 1-4, 8-16 above, in view of Millon (US 2013/0302664A1).
Regarding claim 5, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Houchin-Miller does not further disclose the protective cover is fixed to the plate by a binder.
Millon discloses a battery cell isolator including a first portion and a second portion formed from polypropylene which are joined by an adhesive (see Title, Abstract, [0037], [0044]-[0045]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 6, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Houchin-Miller further discloses one side wall of the two side walls of the protective cover is disposed between adjacent ones of the battery units in one layer (see Fig. 6-11), the reference does not further disclose wherein an end portion of the one side wall on the plate side is bonded to the plate by a binder.
Millon discloses a battery cell isolator including a first portion and a second portion formed from polypropylene which are joined by an adhesive (see Title, Abstract, [0037], [0044]-[0045]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Houchin-Miller discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Although Houchin-Miller further discloses one side wall of the two side walls of the protective cover is disposed between adjacent battery units of the battery units in one layer (see Fig. 6-11), the reference does not further disclose the one side wall is bonded to the adjacent battery units.
Millon discloses a battery cell isolator including a first portion and a second portion formed from polypropylene which are joined by an adhesive (see Title, Abstract, [0037], [0044]-[0045]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights