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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) have been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by You (WO2021097644A1, US 20210249731 A1 used as translation).
Regarding claim 1, You teaches all the following elements:
A battery pack, comprising: a box body enclosing to form an accommodating cavity, (“In the battery pack according to the embodiments of the present disclosure, a restraint assembly is provided within a box assembly, and an accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery module is provided inside the restraint assembly.” You [0053])
the box body comprising a bottom cover located at its bottom and used for defining the accommodating cavity; (In this case, the box 11 in combination with the first restraint member 31 functions as the bottom cover which both defines the accommodating cavity and provides a feature surface. As can be seen in You figures 1-3, the two restraining members form an accommodating cavity which houses a plurality of battery units. This cavity is attached to the box 11, which functions as a broader bottom cover, whereas restraint member 31 functions as the feature surface having a smaller area and facing the accommodating cavity.)
and a battery cell accommodated in the accommodating cavity; (“In some embodiments, the battery module includes a plurality of battery units, a first surface of each of the plurality of battery units is opposite to a top side or a bottom side of the restraint assembly,” You [0015]In this case, battery unit is the equivalent of a battery cell.)
wherein the bottom cover has a feature surface facing the accommodating cavity, and the feature surface is constructed as a plane. (See comparison between You figure 1 and instant figure 4, the bottom part of restraint member 31 functions as the feature surface which is constructed as a plane.)
PNG
media_image1.png
406
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
621
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, You teaches all the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein in a vertical direction, an area S1 of an orthographic projection of the feature surface and an area S2 of an orthographic projection of the bottom cover meet: S1/S2≥0.2. (As can be seen in You figure 1 above, the area in a vertical direction of the feature surface, in this case the bottom plane of restraint member 31, have an area that is at least 20% as large as that of You bottom cover 11. Therefore, this limitation would be met without requiring an explicit mention of this ratio.)
Regarding claim 3, You teaches all the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein an orthographic projection of the feature surface is rectangular in a vertical direction. (In the case where the bottom plane/plate of restraining member 31 of You functions as the feature surface, as described above in claim 1, the feature surface would be rectangular in a vertical direction, thus meeting all of the limitations of claim 3.)
Regarding claim 4, You teaches all the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein: the bottom cover has a cover portion and a mounting portion, the mounting portion encloses and is connected to an edge of the cover portion, the cover portion is used for defining the accommodating cavity, and the mounting portion is mounted to a part of the box body other than the bottom cover; (the first restraint member 31 of You has both a cover portion, which is formed along the sides and bottom and defines the accommodating cavity, as well as a mounting portion 312 which is formed on an edge of the cover portion and looks analogous to that of the instant invention and is used to mount to the fixed beams 12 “The two first mounting portions 312 are respectively connected to both sides of the first limiting portion 311 along the arrangement direction of the plurality of fixed beams 12.” You [0086])
and an inner surface of the cover portion facing the accommodating cavity is constructed to form the feature surface. (The inner surface of the bottom cover facing the accommodating cavity forms the feature surface in both the instant figure 6 as well as You figure 1, see below for comparison.)
PNG
media_image3.png
360
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
513
798
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, You teaches all the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 4, wherein an outer surface of the cover portion away from the accommodating cavity is parallel to the feature surface. (The outside of the cover portion of You shown above for claim 4 would form an outer surface which is parallel to the feature surface.)
Regarding claim 6, You teaches all the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 4, wherein the cover portion is arranged to protrude in a direction away from the accommodating cavity with respect to the mounting portion. (As can be seen in the below figure, the cover portion protrudes downward from the mounting portion in the same manner as is shown in instant figure 7. This is both away from the accommodating cavity with respect to the mounting portion while also still defining the accommodating cavity.)
PNG
media_image4.png
513
798
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
204
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, You teaches all the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 4, wherein the cover portion and the mounting portion have equal thicknesses. (As can be seen above, the cover portion and mounting portion of You are formed integrally/from the same metal sheet. You confirms this-- “Since the restraint assembly 3 is generally formed by bending a sheet,” You [0064]. Since the mounting portion and cover portion are formed from the same metal sheet, they would inherently have equal thicknesses, even if this were not explicitly mentioned. Thus, the structure of You would meet all of the limitations of claim 7.)
Regarding claim 8, You teaches all the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the bottom cover is arranged at an interval from the battery cell. (Instant specification states “The arrangement of the bottom cover 12 and the battery cell 20 at an interval refers to maintaining a set interval r between the bottom cover 12 and the battery cell 20 in the vertical direction.” Instant spec [0123]—this implies that the interval “r” can be any distance. Thus, the bottom cover being arranged any distance from the battery cell would meet this limitation. If applicant wishes for the interval to be a certain distance, this must be further specified in an amendment. Additionally, You does teach the formation of a gap between the bottom of the battery units and the outer bottom cover, for use as an exhaust passage.)
PNG
media_image6.png
283
587
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, You teaches all the following elements:
An electrical apparatus, comprising the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the battery pack is used for providing electric energy to the electrical apparatus. (“FIGS. 1 to 10 are schematic structural views of a battery pack according to some embodiments of the present disclosure. The battery pack may be used in a transportation vehicle to supply electrical energy for operation of the device. For example, the transportation includes a vehicle or a ship.” You [0054])
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiemann (US 20210339616 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wiemann teaches all of the following elements:
A battery pack, comprising: (“In addition, the battery carrier 1 has a plurality of battery packs 6 adjacent to which the support profiles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 extend. These battery packs 6 are electrically interconnected to form a battery by means of electrical connections” Wiemann [0035])
a box body enclosing to form an accommodating cavity, (“FIG. 1 shows an example of a battery carrier 1 (often also called a battery case) having a trough 2 and having a lid 3 that closes the trough 2. This lid 3 is detachably connected to the trough 2 by means of first screw connections 4.1 that are depicted in an implied way. The trough 2 has a trough side wall 2.1 and a trough bottom 2.2 that is connected to the trough side wall 2.1.” Wiemann [0034]. In this case, the trough having a trough side wall, trough bottom, and lid form the box body forming an accommodating cavity)
the box body comprising a bottom cover located at its bottom and used for defining the accommodating cavity; (Wiemann Bottom 2.2 functions as the bottom cover located at the bottom and used for defining the accommodating cavity)
and a battery cell accommodated in the accommodating cavity; (“The battery packs 6 preferably have lithium-ion cells. As is known, a battery pack 6 is understood to be a pack of a plurality of battery cells 6.7” Wiemann [0035]. It is clear that Wiemann is teaching a battery pack within the accommodating cavity which contains battery cells.)
wherein the bottom cover has a feature surface facing the accommodating cavity, and the feature surface is constructed as a plane. (“In a simply designed and heavy-duty way, the bond between the trough 2 and support profiles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 is produced, for example, by means of integrally bonded connections. In this way, the support profiles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 are each permanently connected to both the trough side wall 2.1 and the trough bottom 2.2, namely by means of welding seams 8” Wiemann [0046]. In this case, the trough bottom functions as the feature surface which is constructed as a plane facing the accommodating cavity.)
Regarding claim 9, Wiemann teaches all of the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the box body further comprises a carrier located at a top of the box body, the carrier is used for defining the accommodating cavity, and the battery cell is suspended from the carrier. (“FIG. 1 shows an example of a battery carrier 1 (often also called a battery case) having a trough 2 and having a lid 3 that closes the trough 2. This lid 3 is detachably connected to the trough 2 by means of first screw connections 4.1 that are depicted in an implied way. The trough 2 has a trough side wall 2.1 and a trough bottom 2.2 that is connected to the trough side wall 2.1. The battery carrier 1 is part of a traction battery, not shown in detail, for a vehicle, in particular a motor vehicle.” Wiemann [0034]. Wiemann teaches a box body that comprises a carrier which is used to attach to a vehicle, thus meeting all of the limitations of claim 9.)
Regarding claim 10, Wiemann teaches all of the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 9, wherein an outer surface of the battery cell facing the carrier is a first outer surface, the battery cell comprises electrode terminals, and the electrode terminals are arranged on an outer surface of the battery cell other than the first outer surface. (“The battery packs 6 preferably have lithium-ion cells. As is known, a battery pack 6 is understood to be a pack of a plurality of battery cells 6.7 that are interconnected by means of a cell connector or bus bar 6.8, which battery cells 6.7 are preferably enclosed by a housing 6.8 and this is often referred to as the battery module 6.” Wiemann [0035]. The commonly understood definition of a bus bar or cell connector is a structure used to electrically connect terminals of cells or modules in order to distribute current. In this case, if a bus bar were used to connect the plurality of cells, there would inherently be electrode terminals arranged on an outer surface of the cells such that they can be connected in this manner, even if not explicitly mentioned in the specification. This is depicted in figure 2. There are clearly additional outer surfaces of the cells which do not contain electrode terminals; thus, the limitation is met. Barring further specification of the orientation of the various outer surfaces and the positioning of the terminals, this would be anticipated by any battery cell having an electrode terminal on a single outer surface.)
Regarding claim 13, Wiemann teaches all of the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the box body further comprises a carrier and a frame, (“In a simply designed and heavy-duty way, the bond between the trough 2 and support profiles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 is produced, for example, by means of integrally bonded connections. In this way, the support profiles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 are each permanently connected to both the trough side wall 2.1 and the trough bottom 2.2, namely by means of welding seams 8—as shown in FIG. 1. In addition, support profiles 5.1 and 5.2 are firmly connected to one another, which produces a frame structure 14 with a high strength and rigidity.” Wiemann [0046]. Wiemann teaches a box body which comprises a carrier [carrier 1] a frame [trough side walls, trough bottom, and support profiles] which form a cavity.)
the frame encloses to form a cavity of which two ends in a vertical direction are run through, (support profiles 5.1 and 5.2 form vertical supports which enclose the cavity in a vertical direction and form a frame.)
the bottom cover and the carrier respectively cover the two opposite ends of the cavity in the vertical direction, (In this case, lid 3 functions as the carrier portion and the trough bottom 2.2 functions as the bottom cover, both of which cover the two opposite ends of the cavity in a vertical direction.)
and the bottom cover, the frame, and the carrier jointly enclose to form the accommodating cavity. (As shown in the above section of paragraph [0046], the bottom cover, support profiles, and lid functions to form a frame with a top and bottom portion which jointly enclose to form the accommodating cavity, thus meeting the limitations of claim 14.)
Regarding claim 14, Wiemann teaches all of the following elements:
The battery pack according to claim 13, wherein the carrier is fixedly connected to or integrally formed with the frame. (“In a simply designed and heavy-duty way, the bond between the trough 2 and support profiles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 is produced, for example, by means of integrally bonded connections.” Wiemann [0046]. Wiemann clearly defines that its frame and carrier are integrally formed such as to create simply designed frame/structure which has high strength and rigidity.)
Regarding claim 15, Wiemann teaches all of the following elements:
An electrical apparatus, comprising the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the battery pack is used for providing electric energy to the electrical apparatus. (“As can also be inferred from FIG. 1, the battery carrier 1 is mounted as part of a traction battery in a motor vehicle 100 as implied in the drawing, namely underneath the body floor pan 101, with the lid 3 of the battery carrier 1 arranged oriented toward the body floor pan 101.” Wiemann [0060]. In this case, the electric apparatus is the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 16, Wiemann teaches all of the following elements:
The electrical apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the electrical apparatus comprises a vehicle, and the battery pack is arranged at the bottom of the vehicle body. (“As can also be inferred from FIG. 1, the battery carrier 1 is mounted as part of a traction battery in a motor vehicle 100 as implied in the drawing, namely underneath the body floor pan 101, with the lid 3 of the battery carrier 1 arranged oriented toward the body floor pan 101.” Wiemann [0060].)
Regarding claim 17, Wiemann teaches all of the following elements:
The electrical apparatus according to claim 16, wherein: the box body further comprises a carrier located at a top of the box body, the carrier being used for defining the accommodating cavity; (“The battery carrier 1 is part of a traction battery, not shown in detail, for a vehicle, in particular a motor vehicle.” Wiemann [0034])
and the battery pack is mounted to the vehicle body through the carrier. (“As can also be inferred from FIG. 1, the battery carrier 1 is mounted as part of a traction battery in a motor vehicle 100 as implied in the drawing, namely underneath the body floor pan 101,” Wiemann [0060])
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.
5. Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemann (US 20210339616 A1) in view of Darbandi (US 20240097295 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Wiemann teaches all of the elements of claim 10, as shown above. Wiemann is silent on the following elements of claim 11:
The battery pack according to claim 10, wherein the battery cell has a second outer surface arranged opposite to the first outer surface, and the electrode terminals are arranged on the second outer surface.
However, Darbandi teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Wiemann:
The battery pack according to claim 10, wherein the battery cell has a second outer surface arranged opposite to the first outer surface, and the electrode terminals are arranged on the second outer surface. (“The energy storage cells may especially each have a first cell terminal and a second cell terminal … For example, exactly one cell terminal may be disposed at each longitudinal end, or else two cell terminals may be disposed at one longitudinal end.” Darbandi [0060-0065]. In the case where two cell terminals are disposed on one longitudinal end, the above limitation would be met, as the other longitudinal end would function as the first outer surface and the end with the two electrode terminals would functions as the second outer surface.)
Darbandi and Wiemann are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of battery packs including carriers that are attached to the underside of a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery unit/cell of Wiemann, which has an unspecified structure, to use the electrode terminal configuration of Darbandi. Darbandi teaches that this is a known structure in the art, and therefore it would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to place two electrode terminals on a single outer surface of the cell, and have an outer surface opposite that cell not contain any electrode terminals. This could alternatively be considered the simple substitution of one battery cell used in a vehicular battery pack for another, and The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 12, Wiemann teaches all of the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Wiemann is silent on the following elements of claim 12:
The battery pack according to claim 9, wherein the battery cell is bonded to the carrier.
However, Darbandi teaches all of the elements of claim 12 that are not found in Wiemann:
The battery pack according to claim 9, wherein the battery cell is bonded to the carrier. (“ FIG. 10 shows an alternative design wherein, by contrast with the designs of FIGS. 8 and 9, the protective film 300 has been applied directly to the carrier 15. Here too, it may, for example, be applied by adhesive bonding or secured by means of a screw connection.” Darbandi [0140] and “In one design, one, some or all energy storage cell(s) is/are mechanically secured by adhesive, where the adhesive preferably forms one, some or all seals.” Darbandi [0074]. In this case, Darbandi secures all of the energy storage cells via an adhesive, and bonds this to the carrier in the same manner as described in the instant specification “In some embodiments, the battery cell 20 is bonded to the carrier 11a. Specifically, the bonding between the battery cell 20 and the carrier 11a may be achieved by using an adhesive” Instant spec [0146-0147])
Darbandi and Wiemann are considered analogous for the reasons provided above. It would additionally have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to bond the cells to the carrier via adhesive in order to protect against short circuit in a thermal event (“As already mentioned with regard to FIG. 1, the energy storage cell 20 has a pressure relief opening 28, which is aligned such that, in the case of a thermal event, high-speed and hot particles 29 are thrown in the direction of the carrier 15. Without suitable protection, this could lead to a short circuit against the carrier 15 used as ground. In order to prevent this, in the present case, a protective film 300 is disposed between energy storage cell 20 and carrier 15, such that the particles 29 mentioned do not reach the carrier 15.” Darbandi [0135-0136]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiemann (US 20210339616 A1) in view of Tong (US 20180333905 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Wiemann teaches all of the elements of claim 17, as shown above. Wiemann is silent on the following elements of claim 18:
The electrical apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the carrier is configured to form at least a part of the chassis of the vehicle body.
However, Tong teaches all of the elements of claim 18 that are not found in Wiemann:
The electrical apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the carrier is configured to form at least a part of the chassis of the vehicle body. (“The component carrier 100 can further include a number of attachment points for attaching one or more batteries and one or more battery related components.” Tong [0029] and “ wherein said component carrier is configured to be a stressed member of a chassis of a vehicle.” Tong [0022].)
Tong and Wiemann are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of battery packs/cases/carriers that are attached to the underside of a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wiemann to include the carrier as part of the vehicle chassis in order to reduce weight and assembly costs of an electric vehicle, Tong teaches the usage of a battery pack/carrier that is actively used as part of the chassis of a vehicle in order to improve the performance to weight ratio in order to reduce weight of a vehicle by replacing a traditional “K-member,” “H-member,” or “engine cradle.” (“A component carrier can be used in lieu of traditional body-in-white structural members such as the “K-member”, “H-member” or “engine cradle … The disclosed component carrier can be integrated as one part and can be made using injection molding, which can reduce costs versus the traditional solution of stamping parts and mechanically assembling the parts with welding, when mass produced. The disclosed component carriers can have high performance-to-weight ratio, which can lead to weight reduction.” Tong [0011])
Conclusion
The following references were considered to be relevant in the search, but were not used in the above rejection:
Drabon (CN 107757327A) –teaches a battery pack that includes a carrier and is placed under the vehicle body, meeting the limitations of at least claims 1, 15-18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights