DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The claims are directed towards “A cell-to-pack (CTP) battery” that includes “an integrated cover.” The instant specification and drawings show that the “integrated cover 200” is not an integrally molded, one-piece component; instead, it is made of three pieces, an upper panel and two side panels, that are fastened together. The word “integrated,” therefore is interpreted broadly to mean a component that is composed of one or more pieces that are, or are capable of, being fastened together to form an “integrated” piece—i.e., a component that may be formed from joined subcomponents.
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2022/0123400 to Kim et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches:
a cell-to-pack battery (CTP) comprising a cover formed from side panels 20 and top panel 40, covering upper, left, and right surfaces of a cell assembly (Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
778
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one clamp 52 supported on a bottom surface of the cell assembly and connected between left and right panels of the integrated cover (¶ 0051, Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches:
end plates 201 overlap side panels 202 provided at left and right sides of the integrated cover and fixing portions of the clamp are fixed in a state in which the fixing portions overlap the side panels and the end plates (Figs. 3, 8, 12, ¶ 0081-0082)
PNG
media_image2.png
580
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches:
wherein the endplate 201 overlaps an outer surface of the side panel 202 and a fixing portion is bent upward and joined by welding in a state in which the fixing portion overlaps an outer surface of the endplate (Fig. 3, ¶ 0024-0025, 0084)
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches:
an upper end of the end plates 201 extending towards the upper panel 40 formed on the upper surface of the integrated cover and fixed to the upper panel (Fig. 13)
wherein the upper end of the end plates can be said to have “surface pressure forming portions” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase that comprise the clamp 51 fastening the side panels 201 to the upper panel 40
PNG
media_image3.png
516
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches:
a seating groove portion having a shape corresponding to a front and rear length of the surface pressure forming portion 51 is formed on an upper surface of the upper panel 40 and the surface pressure forming portion 51 is fixed in the seating groove portion (Fig. 13, ¶ 0084-0085)
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (US 2022/0209353 to Jang).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Jang teaches:
a cell-to-pack battery (CTP) comprising a cover formed from side panels 410/420 and top panel 800, covering upper, left, and right surfaces of a cell assembly (Fig. 19)
PNG
media_image4.png
656
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
at least one clamp 520 supported on a bottom surface of the cell assembly and connected between left and right panels of the integrated cover (¶ 0118-0119, Fig. 19)
end plates 421 overlap side panels 422 provided at left and right sides of the integrated cover and fixing portions of the clamp are fixed in a state in which the fixing portions overlap the side panels and the end plates (Fig. 22, ¶ 0130-0131)
PNG
media_image5.png
546
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the endplate 201 overlaps an outer surface of the side panel 202 and a fixing portion is bent upward and joined by welding in a state in which the fixing portion overlaps an outer surface of the endplate (¶ 0131-0135)
Regarding Claim 4, Jang teaches:
wherein a lower end of the side panel 422b extends downward to a portion where the side panel is joined to the fixing portion by welding (¶ 0131-0135)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0123400 to Kim et al.).
Regarding Claims 7-10, Kim does not explicitly teach:
the surface pressure forming portions 51 provided as a plurality of clamps spaced apart from one another (claim 7)
the plurality of clamps 51 provided symmetrically at front and rear sides based on an imaginary first center line (claim 8)
the at least one bottom clamp 52 provided as a plurality of clamps spaced apart from one another (claim 9)
the bottom clamps 52 being symmetrically provided based on an imaginary center line (claim 10)
It would have been obvious, however, to provide more upper and lower clamps along the front/rear axis of the cell battery, to provide more even clamping force, depending on the length of the cells. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It further would have been obvious to provide the same number of clamps, at the same relative positions, on either side of an imaginary center line, to ensure even clamping force along the stack. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches:
front and rear covers 60 shaped to cover front and rear surfaces of the cell assembly (Fig. 3)
wherein avoidance grooves are provided in the side plates to receive fixing portions of clamps (Fig. 19)
wherein avoidance grooves are provided at the corners of the side plates and front/rear plates to receive fasteners (Fig. 19)
PNG
media_image6.png
704
576
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim, in other words, teaches providing grooved receiving sections for receiving clamps and fasteners, in any of the side plates. It would have been obvious to provide clamps spaced along the entire bottom of the cell assembly to improve compression of the cells, and it would have likewise been obvious to provide complementary grooves for receiving clamps provided near or at the front/rear plates, since Kim teaches complementary grooves at clamping and fastening sections to improve the joining. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0184303
US 2013/0022859
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights