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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “203” in Fig. 2 has been used to designate both the second case portion of the battery cas and the accommodating space of the battery cas. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number "202". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 2, “protective film 68” should read as “protective film” in order to have consistent nomenclature throughout the claims.
In claim 12, line 3, “a battery module of claim 1” should read as “the battery module of claim 1” in order to more clearly and consistently refer to the battery module in claim 1.
In claim 13, line 1, “a battery of claim 12” should read as “the battery of claim 12” in order to more clearly and consistently refer to the battery in claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required. Suggested corrections are underlined for emphasis only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation “the battery cell” in line 8. However, a plurality of battery cells is introduced in line 2. Thus, it is unclear if “the battery cell” in line 8 is intending to refer to only one of the plurality of battery cells or to each of the battery cells. Based on Figures 4 and 5 of the instant application, it is assumed that this limitation is intending to refer to each of the battery cells. Thus, for examination purposes, “the battery cell” in line 8 will be read as “each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells.”
Claims 2-13 are also rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the battery cell” in line 1. However, a plurality of battery cells is introduced in line 2 of claim 1, of which claim 3 is dependent. Thus, it is unclear if “the battery cell” in line 1 is intending to refer to only one of the plurality of battery cells or to each of the battery cells. Based on Figure 5 of the instant application, it is assumed that this limitation is intending to refer to each of the battery cells. Thus, for examination purposes, “the battery cell” in line 1 will be read as “each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells.”
Appropriate correction is required in order to overcome the indefiniteness rejections. Suggested corrections are bolded and underlined for emphasis only.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 213342718 with English Machine Translation) (Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a battery module (2) (title; see Fig. 3), comprising: a plurality of battery cells, the plurality of battery cells being arranged in a first direction (see Modified Figure 3 below; [0058]); a heating film (1) extending in the first direction and attached to a first wall of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells, the first wall being parallel to the first direction (see Modified Figure 3 below; [0058]); and a protective film (12), the protective film (12) extending in the first direction and attached to a first surface (upper surface) of the heating film (1) away from the battery cell, the protective film (12) being configured to protect the heating film (1) (see Fig. 2; [0057]; [0049]-[0050]).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Wang
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Wang further discloses that the protective film covers the first surface (upper surface) of the heating film (1) (see Fig. 2; [0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Wang further discloses that the battery cell includes two first walls spaced apart from each other and arranged oppositely in a second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (see Modified Figure 3 below). Wang further discloses that the heating film (1) is attached to both first walls of the battery cell (see Modified Figure 3 below; [0058]). Thus, under BRI, examiner considers the portions of heating film (1) attached to each side of the battery cells as corresponding to the claimed two heating films. Furthermore, since the protective film (12) covers the entire heating film (1) (see Fig. 2; [0057]-[0058]), examiner considers the portions of the protective film (12) on each side of the battery cells as corresponding to the claimed two protective films. Thus, Wang reads on all of the limitations in claim 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Wang
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Wang further discloses end plates (clamping plate) arranged at two ends of the plurality of battery cells in the first direction (see Modified Figure 3 below; [0058]), end portions (direct bonding area) of the heating film (1) and the protective film (12) in the first direction being fixedly connected to the end plates (see Modified Figure 3 below; [0057]-[0058]).
PNG
media_image3.png
455
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Wang
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 4. Wang further discloses that the end portions of the protective film (12) in the first direction are provided with holes (14), and the protective film (12) is fixedly connected to the end plates through the holes (14) (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Wang further discloses that the protective film (12) is bonded to the first surface (upper surface) of the heating film (1) (see Fig. 2; [0015]; [0045]; [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Wang further discloses that the protective film (12) is made of polyimide or silicone ([0017]; [0049]-[0050]), which are both non-metallic, high polymer materials, reading on the limitations in claims 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses a battery (title; abstract), comprising: a case (clamping plate); and a battery module (2) of claim 1, the battery module being accommodated in the case (see Fig. 3; [0058]).
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.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 213342718 with English Machine Translation) (Wang).
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. While Wang fails to explicitly disclose a power consuming device comprising the battery of claim 12, Wang is also clear that the background technology of the disclosed battery includes electric vehicles using batteries as a power source ([0002]). Wang further discloses that a heating film structure is needed in electric vehicle batteries under low temperature conditions because these conditions lead to poor discharge capacity of the batteries ([0002]). Therefore, since Wang discloses that the disclosed battery module (2) includes a heating film (1) capable of heating the battery (see Fig. 3; [0033]; [0043]-[0044]; [0054]; [0058]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the disclosed battery as a power source in a power consuming device, such as an electric vehicle, as suggested by Wang, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that the battery would be capable of providing good discharge capacity to the power consuming device, even under low temperature conditions.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 213342718 with English Machine Translation) (Wang '718) in view of Wang et al. (CN 112959766 with English Machine Translation) (Wang '766).
Regarding claim 7, Wang ‘718 discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Wang ‘718 fails to disclose, however, a thickness of the protective film (12).
However, common thicknesses for similar protective films are known in the art. For instance, Wang ‘766 teaches a similar battery module (abstract; [0020]), comprising a plurality of battery cells being arranged in a first direction (see Fig, 4; [0028]; [0035]); a heating film (20+30) extending in the first direction and attached to a surface of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (see Figs. 1 and 4; [0031]); and a protective film (40), the protective film (40) extending in the first direction and attached to a first surface (upper surface) of the heating film (20+30) away from the battery cell, the protective film (40) being configured to protect the heating film (20+30) (see Figs. 2 and 4; [0031]). Wang ‘766 further teaches that the protective film (40) has a thickness of 70 to 130 µm (0.07-0.13 mm) ([0007]; [0011]), overlapping the claimed range of 100 to 200 µm. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Wang ‘766 further teaches that configuring the protective film (40) in this way contributes to the heating film’s foldability, long service life, low cost, and/or good safety ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least tried configuring the protective film disclosed by Wang ‘718 to have a thickness within the claimed range, as taught by Wang ‘766, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so could contribute to the heating film’s foldability, long service life, low cost, and/or good safety.
Regarding claim 10, Wang ‘718 discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. As set forth above, Wang ‘718 discloses that the protective film (12) is made of polyimide ([0050]). Wang ‘718 fails to disclose, however, that the protective film (12) is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or high polymer of polypropylene.
However, these polymers are known alternatives to polyimide in the art. For instance, Wang ‘766 teaches a similar battery module (abstract; [0020]), comprising a plurality of battery cells being arranged in a first direction (see Fig, 4; [0028]; [0035]); a heating film (20+30) extending in the first direction and attached to a surface of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells (see Figs. 1 and 4; [0031]); and a protective film (40), the protective film (40) extending in the first direction and attached to a first surface (upper surface) of the heating film (20+30) away from the battery cell, the protective film (40) being configured to protect the heating film (20+30) (see Figs. 2 and 4; [0031]). Wang ‘766 further teaches that the protective film (40) can be made from polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ([0007]; [0011]). Furthermore, Wang ‘766 teaches that this protective film (40) can contribute to the heating film’s foldability, long service life, low cost, and/or good safety ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least tried substituting the polyimide protective film disclosed by Wang ‘718 with a PET protective film, as taught by Wang ‘766, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to predictable results with respect to the heating film’s foldability, long service life, low cost, and/or safety.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 213342718 with English Machine Translation) (Wang) in view of Sun (CN 105449313 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Wang further discloses that the protective film (12) is made of a plastic, such as polyimide or silicone ([0017]; [0049]-[0050]). Wang fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the protective film (12) is made of a transparent material.
However, it is known in the art to configure similar protective films with a transparent material. For instance, Sun teaches a similar battery module (title, abstract), comprising a plurality of battery cells (200), the plurality of battery cells (200) being arranged in a first direction (see Fig. 4; [0042]); a heating film (110) extending in the first direction and attached to a first wall of a battery cell (200) (see Fig. 4; [0038]-[0042]); and a protective film (112), the protective film (112) extending in the first direction and attached to a first surface of the heating film (110) away from the battery cell (200), the protective film being configured to protect the heating film (110) (see Figs. 4 and 5; [0038]; [0040]). Sun further teaches that the protective film is made of a transparent polyamide film ([0047]). Sun further teaches that this transparent polyamide film (112) has good insulation properties, is very thin, and helps to improve the safety performance of the heating film (110) ([0040]; [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the protective film disclosed by Wang to be a transparent polyamide film, as taught by Sun, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to good insulation properties and an improvement in the safety performance of the heating film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/BRENDON CHARLES DARBY/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights