DETAILED ACTION
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bobel et al. (US 2023/0299404).
Regarding claim 1, Bobel discloses a battery cell pack comprising:
a battery cell stack including a plurality of the battery cells 10;
a pair of end plates 22; and
a plurality of deformable separators 50 (cushioning member) (Figs. 1-3).
The cushioning member includes barrier layers 40 (pair of first elastic members); each barrier layer 40 may include a planar sheet or envelope 42 with an outer layer 44 that is in contact with one of the battery cells 10 ;each planar sheet 42 may be fabricated from a non-porous material, of, polyurethane, and has an elasticity that permits flexure in response to expansive or compressive forces (para 0044) and a bi-wave wave spring 420 or tri-wave spring 430 (second elastic member) (Fig. 4A-4C). The first elastic members being disposed on both outer sides of the second elastic member in the stacking direction of the battery cell stack, the second elastic member includes corrugated leaf springs that are stacked in the stacking direction of the battery cell stack, wherein each of the corrugated leaf springs has recesses and protrusions that alternate and are continuous with each other and extend in a predetermined direction, and the recesses and the protrusions of adjacent ones of the corrugated leaf springs face and are in contact with each other (Fig. 4A-4C). Annotated Fig. 2 and Figs 3 and 4A-4C to Bobel are provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
636
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
558
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
392
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobel et al. (US 2023/0299404).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Bobel does not expressly teach the recesses and protrusions facing each and in contact with each other are bonded to each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the wave spring would need to be bonded because when compressed, two wave springs could slide past one another. The point of a bi-wave wave spring or tri-wave spring is to have a cumulative effect which could be lost if not bonded at the recesses and protrusions facing each other.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobel et al. (US 2023/0299404) in view of Nakayama et al. (US 2022/0320665).
Regarding claim 4, Bobel teaches the plurality of battery cells being planar flexible pouch battery cells (para 0019).
Bobel does not teach solid state battery cells.
Nakayama, directed to a power storage device, teaches a comparable design including corrugated plate 530 applied to a solid-state battery (para 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that different battery-types may be used in a comparable system and could be substituted in each case.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 19/064,738 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a battery module including a battery cell stack, a pair of end plates, and a cushioning material including a corrugated plate/leaf spring and outer elastic/soft resin.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brusa (EP 2 495 786), directed to a stackable holder for a rechargeable battery, teaches two corrugated-metal-shaped portions 15 and 16 (Fig. 12). Kunze et al. (DE 10 2021 103 629), directed to a battery module, teaches an expansion compensation element 10 and that battery cells liquid or solid electrolytes (solid battery) are known (para 0003).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights