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 § 112
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a vertical direction” on page 3 line 24 of the claim set and “the fastening groove is formed in such a manner that a length in a vertical direction thereof” on page 4 lines1-2 of the claim set. Thus, it is unclear whether the applicant is claiming a vertical direction of the fastening groove being distinct from the vertical direction recited on page 3 line 24 of the claim set, or whether the applicant means for both vertical directions to be the same. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 10 to require the length of the fastening groove to be a length in the vertical direction as first claimed on page 3 line 24 of the claim set.
Claim 10 further recites “a length of the vertical direction of the lower end portion of the coupling unit”. It is unclear what the applicant means by a length of the vertical direction since the vertical direction, as claimed on page 3 line 24 of the claim set, merely refers to a dimension in space along which the disposition of elements within the claim is described. Thus, the vertical direction is not a subcomponent of the lower end portion of the coupling unit and cannot have a finite length. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 10 to require a length in a vertical direction of the lower end portion of the coupling unit. Claims 11-13 are rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependency on claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0351455), hereinafter “Kim’455”, in view of Puoti et al. (EP 4006433 A1), hereinafter “Puoti”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim’455 teaches a battery case (corresponding to the claimed battery casing) and a battery module (the combination of battery case and module correspond to the claimed battery assembly) wherein the battery case supports the battery module from below (corresponding to the claimed lower surface of the battery module seated on the bottom surface of the battery casing) (Kim’455, [0028], [0104]), a heat dissipation plate 200 wherein the battery module is seated (corresponding to the claimed lower surface of the battery module is seated on the bottom surface of the battery casing) and supported on the top surface (wherein the heat dissipation plate and the cooling block correspond to the claimed bottom surface of the battery casing) of the heat dissipation plate (Kim’455, [0111]), and a cooling block 300 (corresponding to the claimed bottom surface of the casing) with a cooling path 310 (corresponding to the claimed cooling channel) in which a cooling fluid circulates therethrough and which is sealed by the bottom surface of the heat dissipation plate, and the cooling block cools heat which is generated from the battery module and is transferred through the heat dissipation plate (which one skilled in the art would recognize as describing thermal contact between the cooling block and the battery module and thus corresponds to the claimed battery module in contact with the cooling channel on the bottom surface) (Kim’455, [0121]).
Kim’455 further discloses the battery module is coupled to one surface of the heat dissipation plate but is silent to the method of coupling (Kim’455, [0196]).
However, Puoti teaches fixation by a fastening device comprising at least one sliding flap or bracket (corresponding to the claimed coupling unit) for solving the reasonably pertinent problem of fixing a component to a frame or housing part (Puoti, [0005]). See §MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). The component to be assembled is fixed preferably by at least three sliding flaps or brackets (corresponding to the claimed plurality of coupling units) providing for a particularly stable connection. The fastening device may include a stepped flap penetrating a slot in the bottom wall forming a hooking connection in said slot and thereby preventing a lifto-off of the component from the bottom wall (Puoti, [0034], Fig. 5-6, 9). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Puoti’s sliding flaps and slots to Kim’455’s battery module and battery casing as a means of coupling the two preventing lift-off of the battery module from the battery case (Puoti, [0034]).
The resulting battery case of Kim’455 modified by Puoti would further meet the claimed limitations of a plurality of fastening grooves formed at a plurality of points on Kim’455’s heat dissipation plate and a plurality of coupling units provided on an edge of the lower surface of the battery module at a plurality of points thereon, and corresponding to the fastening grooves as depicted by Puoti.
The examiner notes that the recitation “formed by recessing the bottom surface at a plurality of points thereon” is product-by-process language that a skilled artisan would recognize merely imparts a structure that has a plurality of recesses or grooves which is satisfied by the teachings of Puoti, wherein Puoti discloses three sliding flaps as described above. See MPEP §2113(I).
Further, the recitations “positioned to protrude toward the bottom surface of the battery casing in such a manner as to correspond to the plurality of fastening grooves” and “keeping the lower surface of the battery module in contact with the cooling channel on the bottom surface” are instances of functional language which one skilled in the art would understand merely impart a structure of the coupling units being aligned with the fastening grooves wherein the implied structure is capable of coupling the battery module to the bottom surface under the condition that the coupling units are coupled to the fastening grooves, both of which are suggested by the teachings of Kim’455 modified by Puoti as described above. "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." See MPEP §2114(I).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the product-by-process limitation “formed by being extrusion-molded in a vertical direction”, which is given patentable weight only insofar as the process provides structural implications for the product and not for the actual manipulations involved therein. See MPEP §2113(I). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claimed product-by-process steps merely imply a cooling channel having a vertical clearance. Kim’455 depicts the cooling path having vertical dimensionality in a straight line as claimed (Kim’455, Fig. 15 for example) and teaches a cooling fluid circulates through the cooling path which satisfies the functional limitation “along which a cooling medium flows” (Kim’455, [0121], [0201]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, with claim 4 interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kim’455 teaches a plurality of cooling paths spaced apart from each other (Kim’455, [0204]). Kim’455 modified by Puoti suggests the battery case including a battery module connected via Puoti’s fastening means but does not suggest the location of the fixation portions.
However, as Kim’455 teaches fastening the heat dissipation plate to the cooling block via a fastening member, fastening hole, and nut located between the cooling paths (Kim’455, [0215]-[0219]), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to locate Puoti’s fastening means including flaps and slots such that the slots do not penetrate Kim’455’s cooling flow path to avoid leakage of the cooling liquid by locating them similarly to the fastening members, fastening holes, and nuts disclosed by Kim’455.
Regarding claim 8, Puoti’s slot is depicted as a hole passing through the bottom wall (corresponding to the claimed battery casing) (Puoti, Fig. 5-6, 9-10).
Regarding claim 9, Puoti depicts the flap having a length in the height direction which is greater than a depth of the slot and teaches a second portion 60b (corresponding to the claimed lower end portion of the coupling unit) (Puoti, Fig. 5-6) and teaches, when in a fixation position (corresponding to the claimed state where the coupling unit is inserted into the fastening groove), the second portion is arranged on the reverse side of the bottom wall forming a hooking of the component in said slot (corresponding to the claimed lower end portion exposed to face below the bottom surface of the battery casing) (Puoti, [0034]) and depicts said disposition in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 10, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Puoti teaches a second portion 60b (corresponding to the claimed first fixation portion) (Puoti, [0034]) which is depicted formed on the lower end portion of the coupling unit and which may be seen to have a vertical dimension (corresponding to the claimed extension in the vertical direction) (Puoti, Fig. 5-6);
Puoti describes sliding of the flap thereby engaging it behind an edge of the frame part (corresponding to the claimed battery casing) (Puoti, [0005]) and both depicts the outer edge of the flap (corresponding to the claimed upper end of the coupling unit) directly contacting the side of the slot wall within the slot (corresponding to the claimed prevention of a gap occurring between the upper end of the cou0ling unit and the fastening groove) and the upper face of the second portion extending sideways in such a manner as to be brought into surface contact with the bottom of the housing wall (Puoti, Fig.5-6).
Puoti further depicts the second portion of the flap having a length in the vertical direction and the slot having a depth (corresponding to the claimed length in the vertical direction of the fastening groove) (Puoti, Fig. 5-6) but is silent to the relative dimensions of the slot and the flap.
However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See §MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The claimed length of the groove in the vertical direction (being the depth of the groove) relative to the length in the vertical direction of the first fixation portion (being a portion of the coupling unit that extends below the groove when the coupling unit is inserted into the groove) provides no effect on the ability of the coupling unit and fastening groove to fixedly lock together. That is, in the locked position, the first fixation portion extends below the battery casing away from the groove and does not interact with or overlap with the groove. Furthermore, the height of the first fixation portion does not affect the ability of the coupling unit to be passed through the fastening groove as the portions of the coupling groove which pass through the fastening groove (including the first fixation portion) must only clear the groove in the width direction. Thus, changes to the of the height of the first fixation portion relative to the depth of the groove would provide no difference in performance.
Regarding claim 11, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kim’455 nor Puoti explicitly teaches the fixation material applied to a vicinity of a surface contact portion.
However, Kim’455 teaches an adhesive (corresponding to the claimed fixation material) (Kim’455, [0178]) for coupling the cooling block to various components (for example, Kim’455, [0128], [0161]-[0162], [0165], [0178]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the adhesive in order to couple the second portion of Puoti’s flap, which contacts the bottom of the cooling block (corresponding to the claimed surface contact portion, as described above), to the bottom of the cooling block (Kim’455, [0178]).
Regarding claim 12, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kim’455 nor Puoti explicitly teaches the first or second binding units positioned as claimed.
However, Kim’455 teaches a fastening member to physically couple a plurality of components and which includes a bolt and a nut 720 (corresponding to the claimed second binding unit) which is coupled to the cooling block, and a fastening hole (corresponding to the claimed first binding unit) through which the bolt passes (Kim’455, [0215]-[0217]. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the fastening hole to Puoti’s flap and the bolt coupled to the cooling block so as to correspond to the fastening hole in Puoti’s flap allowing for the fastening member to pass through the fastening hole and couple the flap to the cooling block via the bolt (Kim’455, [0215]).
Regarding claim 14, Puoti depicts the second portion 60b of the flap extending in a horizontal direction and one side portion of the slot having a width greater than the second portion of the flap so that the flap can pass through the wider portion of the slot. Puoti also depicts the slot having a narrower portion and depicts the flap and slot in a fixation position wherein the flap is slid to the narrower side of the slot which has a smaller width in the horizontal direction than the second portion of the flap (Puoti, Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 16, Kim’455 teaches a sidewall 360 and outer frame 400 (wherein the combination of sidewall and outer frame on both sides are referred to as the wall portions hereinafter and the wall portions correspond to the claimed pack side members) and depicts the space for the battery module including a corner formed between the wall portions and the heat dissipation plate which corresponds to the upper end of the cooling paths (Kim’455, Fig. 1-2).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’464 in view of Puoti as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0359929), hereinafter “Kim’929”.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kim’455 does not teach a clamp to which the coupling units are welded or chemically bonded.
However, Kim’929 teaches a battery pack including a battery module having a module frame (corresponding to the claimed clamp) wherein the module frame can house a battery cell stack and the battery cells housed inside can be physically protected through the module frame (Kim’929, [0037]-[0038]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Kim’929’s module frame to Kim’455’s battery module in order to physically protect the battery cells that make up the battery module (Kim’929, [0038]).
As Kim’929 depicts the module frame covering the bottom of the battery module (Kim’929, Fig. 2), Puoti’s fastening means in the battery module suggested by Kim’455 modified by Puoti and Kim’929 would place the fastening means attached to the module frame. Kim’455 further teaches welding as a means of coupling two metal pieces together (Kim’455, [0135]) or an adhesive (corresponding to the claimed chemical bonding as one skilled in the art would recognize that an adhesive functions through chemical action) for coupling two components that are not made of the same kind of metal (Kim’455, [0128]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to couple Puoti’s fastening means to Kim’929’s module frame using welding or an adhesive (Kim’455, 0128], [0135]).
Puoti depicts the flaps of the fastening means with an upper portion extending in a horizontal direction (corresponding to the claimed coupling seating surface) which directly contacts the housing. In the battery module suggested by Kim’455 modified by Puoti and Kim’929, Puoti’s housing is replaced by Kim’929’s module frame and thus the horizontally extending portion of Puoti’s flap would instead be connected to Kim’929’s module frame (corresponding to the claimed coupling seating surface being in close contact with the clamp).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’455 in view of Puoti as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thurmeier et al. (DE 102018219732 A1), hereinafter “Thurmeier”, wherein an English language machine translation of Thurmeier is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “an injection hole” which is an instance of functional language which merely imparts a structure that ius a hole through which a substance could be injected. "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." See MPEP §2114(I). Claim 6 further recites the product-by-process limitation “wherein a gap filler is applied through the injection hole after the battery module is seated”. The process is given patentable weight only insofar as it provides structural implications for the product and not for the actual manipulations involved therein. See MPEP §2113(I). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claimed product-by-process steps merely imply Puoti’s fastening means included in a locked position with the flap inserted in the slot and a gap filler included uniformly under the battery module.
Kim’455 does not suggest a gap filler.
However, Thurmeier teaches a battery housing having a housing base with an injection region (corresponding to the claimed injection hole) and a gap filler, more generally referred to as a heat-conducting element, wherein the heat-conducting element is advantageously injected under the battery module enabling a particularly uniform distribution of heat conducting element in a particularly simple manner (Thurmeier, [0006] [0008]-[0009]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Thurmeier’s heat-conducting element injected through Puoti’s slots to form a particularly uniform distribution of material in a simple manner (Thurmeier, [0009]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’455 in view of Puoti as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bae (KR 101186410 B1), wherein an English language machine translation of Bae is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 13, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Puoti does not teach a second fixation portion or a coupling groove.
However, Bae teaches a hooking portion 31 depicted as a straight portion with a hook formed at the end (wherein the straight portion corresponds to the claimed first fixation portion and the hook corresponds to the claimed second fixation portion and together corresponding to the claimed second fixation portion being formed at an end portion of the first fixation portion) and an engaging groove 15 (corresponding to the claimed coupling groove into which the second fixation portion is coupled) for solving the reasonably pertinent problem of holding two components together with a strong force. Bae also depicts the hooking portion coupling with the engaging portion (corresponding to the claimed second fixation portion being coupled into the coupling groove in a state where the coupling unit is inserted into the fastening groove) (Bae, [0023]), Fig. 3a, 3b). See §MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Bae’s hooking portion and engaging groove to the end of Puoti’s flap second portion and the bottom of the cooling block, respectively, in order to hold the two together with a strong force (Bae, [0023]). Adding Bae’s hooking portion and engaging portion in this way would further satisfy the claimed limitation that the coupling groove is formed in the battery casing and as Puoti’s flap, in the battery casing and module suggested by Kim’455 modified by Puoti and Bae, is located beneath Kim’455’s battery casing when in the fixation position, the hooking portion would extend upwards to reach the engaging portion in order to engage (corresponding to the claimed second fixation portion protruding in the height direction).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’455 in view of Puoti as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Digney (WO 2014075147 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Puoti does not teach a blocking portion in the slot.
However, Digney teaches a lip (corresponding to the claimed blocking portion) provided in a cut out (corresponding to the claimed groove and to Puoti’s slot) which solves the reasonably pertinent problem of causing a cylindrical fastener (corresponding to the claimed coupling unit and Puoti’s flap) to be retained inside a section of a bottom plate when the cylindrical fastener is positioned inside the cut out (corresponding to the claimed coupling unit being fixed to the fastening groove by the blocking portion) (Digney, pg. 11 ln. 10-15). See §MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Digney’s lip within Puoti’s slot (corresponding to the claimed blocking portion formed on another side portion of the fastening groove) in order to retain the flap inside the slot when the flap is slid to the narrow side portion of the slot (i.e., in the fixation position), thereby fastening the flap within the slot (Digney, pg. 11 ln. 10-15). Digney further depicts the lip extending upwards and downwards and into the path of the cylindrical fastener thus when added to Puoti’s slot in the battery casing and module suggested by Kim’455, Puoti and Digney, the claim limitation of the blocking portion being formed in a manner that protrudes in a vertical direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMRAN S SAUND whose telephone number is (571)270-0845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/SIMRAN S. SAUND/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights