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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 2019/0081292 A1), further in view of Sugishita et al (JP 2020/136040 A), further evidenced by Thomasnet (2008).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 7, 13, 15, and 19, Shimizu teaches a battery pack with an outer module housing having side walls spaced apart from each other substantially in parallel in the lateral direction of the bottom wall (Paragraph [0036]) and a plurality of battery cells arranged in rows in a uniform orientation within the outer module housing walls (Paragraph [0032]) in which the battery cells are lithium-ion secondary batteries (Paragraph [0027]), analogous to the claimed electrode assembly of the instant application, each including a casing (Paragraph [0028]). Shimizu does not teach a side wall portion of the battery cell casing to have a thicker wall on the side facing the outer module housing wall.
Sugishita teaches a battery cell container having side walls facing one another wherein the thickness of a second side wall is greater than that of a first side wall (Paragraph [0077]). Sugishita does not teach that the thicker battery cell container wall faces outwards towards the module housing wall.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine battery cell casings with a thicker wall on one side than its opposing parallel side as taught by Sugishita with the batteries within a module housing of a pack configuration as taught by Shimizu in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as reducing deformation at the thicker battery cell casing wall side as taught by Sugishita (Paragraph [0078]). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have also recognized the importance of orienting the thicker battery cell casing walls to be on the outer edges of the assembly such that outward deformation into the module housing walls could be reduced. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claims 2, 6, 14, and 18, Shimizu teaches a battery pack with an outer module housing having side walls spaced apart from each other substantially in parallel in the lateral direction of the bottom wall (Paragraph [0036]) and a plurality of battery cells arranged in rows in a uniform orientation within the outer module housing walls (Paragraph [0032]) in which the battery cells are lithium-ion secondary batteries (Paragraph [0027]), analogous to the claimed electrode assembly of the instant application, each including a casing (Paragraph [0028]). Shimizu does not teach a side wall portion of the battery cell casing to have a thicker wall on the side facing the outer module housing wall.
Sugishita teaches a battery cell container having side walls facing one another wherein the thickness of a second side wall is greater than that of a first side wall (Paragraph [0077]). Sugishita does not teach that the thicker battery cell container wall faces outwards towards the module housing wall.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine battery cell casings with a thicker wall on one side than its opposing parallel side as taught by Sugishita with the batteries within a module housing of a pack configuration as taught by Shimizu in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as reducing deformation at the thicker battery cell casing wall side as taught by Sugishita (Paragraph [0078]). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have also recognized the importance of orienting the thicker battery cell casing walls to be on the outer edges of the assembly such that outward deformation into the module housing walls could be reduced. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Shimizu also teaches that the battery cells are thin flat rectangular parallelepipeds in one direction (Paragraph [0028]) appearing to be of uniform dimensions as repeat units (Fig. 2). It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose battery cells of uniform dimensions as repeat units to reduce internal irregularities in battery pack performance, thus combining the teachings of Shimizu with well-known methods and concepts in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 4, 5, 16, and 17, Shimizu teaches the combination of a housing and a lid to form a battery cell casing made of a metallic material such as aluminum, an aluminum alloy, or stainless (Paragraph [0029]). The case housing of Shimizu is analogous to the case body of the instant application. Shimizu does not teach attachment or assembly by welding to appropriate weld depths as to form a single member comprising the opposite battery cell casing wall portions.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose welding as a method of assembling the battery cell case components, since welding is a well-known method of attaching metallic components to each other. It would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a weld depth that corresponds appropriately to the thickness of the material to be welded since the correlation between weld depth vs. weld effectiveness or peel strength is a well-known concept in the art, thus combining the teachings of Shimizu with well-known methods and concepts in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Please note, Claims 4 and 16 include product by process language with regards to the recitation of welding to form the case of a first energy storage device. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP §2113.
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Shimizu teaches a battery cell casing made of a metallic material such as aluminum, an aluminum alloy, or stainless (Paragraph [0029]). Shimizu does not explicitly teach that the opposing parallel walls of the battery cell casing have the same thickness.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same metallic sheet material of a uniform thickness for fabrication of the battery cell casing walls since consistent properties in both cross-web and down-web directions, such as thickness and specific metallurgical properties, are a desirable quality of metallic sheet materials as used in the manufacturing art (Thomasnet Sheet Metal Design Handbook, Page 3 regarding bend radius and Page 5 regarding edge distortion). Furthermore, maintaining a uniform thickness for fabrication of the battery cell casing walls using metallic sheet material would have reasonably been a default or starting point for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention due to fewer machining and material configurations necessary as compared to materials of non-uniform thickness per the lean manufacturing technique of Single-Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) which was well-known and understood in the industry prior to the claimed invention. Thus, combining the teachings of Shimizu with well-known methods and concepts in the art would arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9, Shimizu teaches insulating spacers arranged between adjacent battery cells as to separate two adjacent battery cells from each other (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claims 10-12, Shimizu does not teach a side wall portion of the battery cell casing to have a thicker wall on one side than its opposing parallel side, a specific thickness of the opposing parallel side, or a difference or ratio among the opposing walls. Sugishita teaches a battery cell container having side walls facing one another wherein the thickness of a second side wall is greater than that of a first side wall, but does not teach the specific thickness of the opposing parallel side or a difference or ratio among the opposing walls.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shimizu and Sugishita to optimize the thickness, difference, and ratio among the two opposing parallel sides of a battery cell casing to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness, difference, and ratio among the two opposing parallel sides of a battery cell casing by the desire to limit and control deformation during expansion as taught by Sugishita (Paragraph [0078]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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 071-272-1000.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights