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
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mostofi (US 20200358061 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Mostofi discloses a vehicle ([0042]) comprising a battery pack (See Fig. 1, element 1) comprising a battery (3), comprising ([0035]-[0047]):
a housing (2) comprising a housing body (sidewalls which form 2, see Fig. 1), a first end plate (opposing side not shown in cross section of Fig. 1 will also have 7), and a second end plate (7) disposed opposite to the first end plate in a length direction of the housing body, the first end plate (opposing end plate 7), the second end plate (7), and the housing body defining an accommodating cavity (portion which accommodates 4), and an adhesive injection port (11) being formed on the second end plate (7); and
a battery core assembly (4) disposed in the accommodating cavity and comprising a first surface (any one of side surfaces of 4 which is on 2), the first surface facing an inner wall of the housing body (2) in a height direction of the housing body, the second end plate (7) and the battery core assembly (4) being separated by a gap (gap is filled by thermal adhesive injected into 13 [0044]), a sealing member (sealing elements [0045]) being disposed in the gap and separating dividing the gap into a first channel and a second channel (See distribution channel 10 which has many channels),
the adhesive injection port being in communication with the first channel (any one of paths shown as being part of 10), a potting channel (10) being provided in the housing, the potting channel (10) comprising the first channel (See distribution channel 10 which has many channels) and a third channel(See distribution channel 10 which has many channels) located between the first surface and the inner wall of the housing body, and a potting adhesive ([0032]) disposed in the potting channel.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Mostofi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Mostofi discloses wherein the battery core assembly comprises a third surface (See Fig. 1, rectangular surface of battery core, 4, has four surfaces and therefore has a third surface) and a fourth surface (See Fig. 1, rectangular surface of battery core, 4, has four surfaces and therefore has a fourth surface opposite third surface) opposite to each other in a width direction of the housing body; and at least
an outer periphery of the fourth surface and at least an outer periphery of the third surface are snugly attached to the housing body (resin paste fills gap and therefore will be snugly attached).
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 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostofi (US 20200358061 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mostofi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Mostofi does not disclose wherein a height of the potting adhesive in the height direction of the housing is D₄, and 0.8 mm ≤ D₄ < 1.5 mm.
The amount of thermally conductive paste will determine the cooling efficiency [0033] and also the cost.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mostofi to have a height of the potting adhesive fall within the claimed range because it will allow for optimization of cooling efficiency and cost.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostofi (US 20200358061 A1) as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, 16, and 20 above and in further view of Akutsu (WO 2011061931 A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 13, and 15, Mostofi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Mostofi does not disclose wherein an air suction port is formed on the first end plate; and the air suction port is in communication with the potting channel, and a pressure in the potting channel is less than a pressure outside the housing.
Akutsu discloses wherein an air suction port is formed on an end plate opposite to the end plate in which a thermally conductive resin paste is injected and the air suction port is in communication with the potting channel, and a pressure in the potting channel is less than a pressure outside the housing and forming an air suction port allows for the resin to be quickly filled (see pg. 5 third paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first plate of Mostofi by forming an air suction port in to the air input port as disclosed by Akutsu because doing so will allow for more effective and quicker filling of the resin material.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the position of the air suction port of modified Mostofi so that they are aligned in order to optimize the fluid flow path and filling of the gaps.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mostofi (US 20200358061 A1) in view of Akutsu (WO 2011061931 A1, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1, 5, 12, 16, and 20 above in further view of Lee (US 20220158284 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Mostofi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Mostofi does not disclose a protective film.
Lee discloses a battery core unit (200 [0073], see Fig. 2) and a protective film (300 [0073]); the protective film is wrapped on an outer peripheral surface of the battery core unit (see Fig. 2); the protective film comprises two openings corresponding to the first end plate and the second end plate (openings which expose 120), respectively; at least one through hole is formed on the protective film (See Fig. 5 310 [0083]); and the through hole is disposed at least on a side surface of the protective film away from the
third channel (third channel of Mostofi is close to analogous structure 120 of Lee) and this wrap structure helps to fix and restrain against expansion [0061]-[0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the battery core of Mostofi by providing a protective wrap as disclosed by Lee because it will help to fix and restrain against expansion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-10, 14, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights