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 .
Election/Restrictions
In view of further consideration Restriction requirement mailed May 27, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: “a method of manufacturing a cell test apparatus including one or more target cells”. Thus, these claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites: “determining a thickness of a thermal-insulation layer of the cell test apparatus, wherein the cell test apparatus simulates a battery module having a plurality of cells, by analyzing heat generated from the battery module, determining a thickness of an outer wall of the cell test apparatus by analyzing a structure of the battery module; and determining a length of a spacer of the cell test apparatus.”
The examiner finds that the foregoing underlined limitations falls into the “Mental Processes” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper, a slide rule or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps, the use of physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because here merely use the computer to perform the otherwise mental process.
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements does are recited at a high level of generality using conventional equipment (see Suganeev et al. RU 2073285 C1, Oshida et al. US 5585204).
The claim does not contain limitations that may be enough to qualify them as significantly more such as applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 3, merely expand upon the abstract by adding “determining the thickness of the thermal-insulation layer of the cell test apparatus comprises: obtaining a first temperature of the plurality of cells; obtaining a second temperature of the one or more target cells; and determining the thickness of the thermal-insulation layer based on each of the first temperature and the second temperature value.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. cells, thermal insulation, measuring temperature) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well- known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 4, further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitations “wherein the second temperature ranges from 90% to 100% of the first temperature.” Further embellishing the invention by defining the temperature range does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 5, merely expands on the abstract idea by adding “wherein the plurality of cells comprises at least one center cell disposed in a central region of the battery module and an end cell disposed in an end region of the battery module, and the determining the thickness of the outer wall of the cell test apparatus comprises: obtaining a first stress value of the end cell, and obtaining a second stress value of the at least one center cell, wherein a target stress value of the one or more target cells ranges from the first stress value to the second stress value, and the thickness of the outer wall is determined based on the target stress value.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. determining the thickness of the outer wall, obtaining a first and second stress value) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well- known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 6 merely expands on the abstract idea by adding “wherein the plurality of cells comprises at least one center cell disposed in a central region of the battery module and an end cell disposed in an end region of the battery module, and the determining the thickness of the outer wall of the cell test apparatus comprises: obtaining a first stress value of the end cell, and obtaining a second stress value of the at least one center cell, wherein a target stress value of the one or more target cells is determined to be a median between the first stress value and the second stress value, and the thickness of the outer wall is determined based on the target stress value.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. determining the thickness of the outer wall, obtaining a first and second stress value) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well- known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 7 merely expands on the abstract idea by adding “wherein determining the length of the spacer comprises: obtaining a distance between two adjacent cells in the battery module; and determining the length of the spacer based on each of the obtained distance and the determined thickness of the thermal-insulation layer.” The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements (i.e. determining the length of the spacer, obtaining a distance between two adjacent cells) in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality using a generic components which are well- known, routine and conventional devices and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 215988936 U) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Kato et al. (CA 2332452 C) (hereinafter Kato) in further view of Yoshida (US 2021/0143508) (hereinafter Yoshida).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method of manufacturing a cell test apparatus including one or more target cells (80) (see Figure 1), the method comprising: determining a thickness of a thermal-insulation layer (300) of the cell test apparatus, wherein the cell test apparatus simulates a battery module having a plurality of cells (80), by analyzing heat generated from the battery module (Figures 4-8 and page 6, line 33 through page 7, line 21).
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach determining a thickness of an outer wall of the cell test apparatus by analyzing a structure of the battery module; and determining a length of a spacer of the cell test apparatus.
Kato teaches determining a thickness of an outer wall of the cell test apparatus by analyzing a structure of the battery module (see page 34, lines 18 through page 35-line 10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Zhang with determining a thickness of an outer wall of the cell test apparatus by analyzing a structure of the battery module as taught by Kato. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide excellent heat-dissipating ability and a high safety.
However, Zhang as modified by Kato does not explicitly teach determining a length of a spacer of the cell test apparatus.
Yoshida teaches determining a length of a spacer (2) (see paragraph 0069).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by the prior combination with determining a length of a spacer of the cell test apparatus. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to suppress heat conduction between adjacent battery cells and prevent thermal runaway.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Kato and Yoshida teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches forming the thermal-insulation layer (4) having the determined thickness, the spacer (2), and the outer wall (6) that is disposed at an outer side of the thermal-insulation layer (4) and has the determined thickness, wherein the thermal-insulation layer (4), the spacer (2), and the outer wall (6) are disposed to surround the one or more target cells (1) of the cell test apparatus (see Figures 2, 4, 10 and paragraphs 0059-0061 and 0067-0069).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Kato and Yoshida teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Zhang further teaches determining the thickness of the thermal-insulation layer (300) of the cell test apparatus comprises: obtaining a first temperature (836.5 °C) of the plurality of cells (300); obtaining a second temperature (290.7°C) of the one or more target cells (80) (see page 6, lines 33-46); and determining the thickness of the thermal-insulation layer based on each of the first temperature (836.5 °C) and the second temperature value (290.7°C) (see Figures 4-8 and page 6, line 33 through page 7, line 21).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Kato and Yoshida teaches all the limitations of claim 3, Zhang further teaches wherein the second temperature ranges around 35% of the first temperature.
However, Zhang as modified by Kato and Yoshida does not explicitly teach the second temperature ranges from 90% to 100% of the first temperature.
Although, Zhang as modified by Kato and Yoshida does not explicitly teach the second temperature ranges from 90% to 100% of the first temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the second temperature ranging from 90% to 100% of the first temperature, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Kato and Yoshida teaches all the limitations of claim 1, Yoshida further teaches wherein determining the length of the spacer (2) comprises: obtaining a distance between two adjacent cells (1) in the battery module (see Figures 2-3 and 8, and paragraph 0078-0080); and determining the length of the spacer (2) based on each of the obtained distance and the determined thickness of the thermal-insulation layer (4) (see paragraphs 0059-0061).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude et al. (US 11664546) (hereinafter Stude) in view of Yoshida.
Regarding claim 8, Stude teaches a method of manufacturing a cell test apparatus, the method comprising: forming an insulation layer (1A) in contact (at least in thermal contact) with a first long-side wall portion of a cell (12) (see Figure 3 and column 11, lines 5-10, lines 18-27); forming a first thermal-insulation layer (1D) in contact with the insulation layer (1A) (see Figure 3 and column 12, lines 6-21); forming a second thermal-insulation layer (1B) in contact with a second long-side wall portion that is arranged to be opposite to the first long-side wall portion of the cell (12) (see Figure 3 and column 11, lines 28-52); forming a first outer wall (10) disposed at an outer side of the first thermal-insulation layer (1D) (see Figure 3 and column 12, lines 6-21); forming a second outer wall disposed at an outer side of the second thermal-insulation layer (“the heat insulation element 1A and/or 1B encloses and/or envelops at least one battery cell 12 or a group of battery cells 12, preferably on all sides, and/or in particular in such a way that the battery cell 12 and/or group of battery cells 12 is mounted and/or arranged in a damping manner in the housing 9 via the heat insulation element 1A and/or 1B”; see column 11, lines 36-42 and “The heat insulation elements 1A-1D are preferably each arranged between a battery cell 12 and/or the battery cells 12 and the housing 9”; see column 12, lines 22-24).
However, Stude does not explicitly teach forming a first spacer disposed on a first short-side wall portion of the cell and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall; and forming a second spacer disposed on a second short-side wall portion that is arranged to be opposite to the first short-side wall portion of the cell and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall.
Yoshida teaches forming a first spacer (2) disposed on a first short-side wall portion of the cell (1) and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall (cell (1) has a first outer wall and second outer wall) (see Figures 2-3 and 8, and paragraph 0078-0080); and forming a second spacer (2) disposed on a second short-side wall portion that is arranged to be opposite to the first short-side wall portion of the cell (1) and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall (see Figures 2-3 and 8, and paragraph 0078-0080).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Stude with forming a first spacer disposed on a first short-side wall portion of the cell and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall; and forming a second spacer disposed on a second short-side wall portion that is arranged to be opposite to the first short-side wall portion of the cell and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall as taught by Yoshida. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to suppress heat conduction between adjacent battery cells and prevent thermal runaway.
Regarding claim 13, Stude in view of Yoshida teaches all the limitations of claim 8, Stude further teaches comprising forming an insulation layer disposed between the first long-side wall portion and the first thermal-insulation layer (insulation layer 1 having two or more fiber layers 5) (see Figures 1A-1C and column 7, lines 58-65).
Claims 9-10, 12, 14-15 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude in view of Yoshida in further view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 9, Stude in view of Yoshida teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
However, Stude as modified Yoshida does not explicitly teach analyzing thermal and structural properties of a battery module comprising a plurality of cells including the cell before the forming the first thermal-insulation layer.
Zhang teaches analyzing thermal and structural properties of a battery module comprising a plurality of cells including the cell before the forming the first thermal-insulation layer (see Figures 4-8 and page 6, line 33 through page 7, line 21).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by the prior combination with analyzing thermal and structural properties of a battery module comprising a plurality of cells including the cell before the forming the first thermal-insulation layer as taught by Zhang. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to inhibit battery module heat spreading and prevent thermal runaway conditions that could cause fire or explosion accidents.
Regarding claim 10, Stude in view of Yoshida and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches analyzing the thermal and structural properties of the battery module comprises: obtaining a temperature of the plurality of cells of the battery module; and determining a thickness for each of the first thermal-insulation layer and the second thermal-insulation layer based on the obtained temperature (see Zhang; Figures 4-8 and page 6, line 33 through page 7, line 21).
Regarding claim 12, Stude in view of Yoshida and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein analyzing the thermal and structural properties of the battery module comprises: obtaining a distance between two adjacent cells (1) in the battery module; and determining a length of each of the first spacer (2) and the second spacer (2) based on the obtained distance (see Yoshida; paragraph 0069).
However, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang does not explicitly teach the thickness of the first thermal-insulation layer, and the thickness of the second thermal-insulation layer based on the obtained distance.
Zhang teaches the thickness of the first thermal-insulation layer (300), and the thickness of the second thermal-insulation layer based (300) on the obtained distance (see Figures 3-6 and page 5, lines 31-46, page 6, lines 33-52 and page 7, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 14, Stude in view Yoshida teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
However, Stude as modified by Yoshida does not explicitly forming a cooling unit disposed at a lower portion of the cell test apparatus.
Zhang teaches forming a cooling unit (200) disposed at a lower portion of the cell test apparatus (80) (see Figure 1 and page 4, lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by the prior combination with a cooling unit disposed at a lower portion of the cell test apparatus as taught by Zhang. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to reduce the highest temperature and temperature difference in the battery, and to spread of thermal runaway to the adjacent battery.
Regarding claim 15, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches wherein a cooling temperature of the cooling unit is the same as a cooling temperature of a cooling unit of a battery module (Note: the cooling unit (200) is the cooling unit of a battery module, therefore the temperature is the same), and the battery module comprises a plurality of cells including the cell (80) (see Zhang; Figure 1 and page 4, lines 9-18).Regarding claim 16, Stude teaches a cell test apparatus, comprising: a first thermal-insulation layer (1D) disposed on a first long-side wall portion of a cell (12) (see Figure 3 and column 12, lines 6-21); an insulation layer disposed between the first long-side wall portion and the first thermal-insulation layer of the cell (insulation layer 1 having two or more fiber layers 5) (see Figures 1A-1C and column 7, lines 58-65); a second thermal-insulation layer (1B) in contact with a second long-side wall portion that is arranged to be opposite to the first long-side wall portion of the cell (12) (see Figure 3 and column 11, lines 28-52); a first outer wall (10) disposed at an outer side of the first thermal-insulation layer (1D); a second outer wall (9) disposed at an outer side of the second thermal-insulation layer (“the heat insulation element 1A and/or 1B encloses and/or envelops at least one battery cell 12 or a group of battery cells 12, preferably on all sides, and/or in particular in such a way that the battery cell 12 and/or group of battery cells 12 is mounted and/or arranged in a damping manner in the housing 9 via the heat insulation element 1A and/or 1B”; see column 11, lines 36-42 and “The heat insulation elements 1A-1D are preferably each arranged between a battery cell 12 and/or the battery cells 12 and the housing 9”; see column 12, lines 22-24).
However, Stude does not explicitly teach a first spacer disposed on a first short-side wall portion of the cell and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall; and a second spacer disposed on a second short-side wall portion that is arranged to be opposite to the first short-side wall portion of the cell and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall; and a cooling unit disposed at a lower portion of the cell.
Yoshida teaches a first spacer (2) disposed on a first short-side wall portion of the cell (1) and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall (cell (1) has a first outer wall and second outer wall) (see Figures 2-3 and 8, and paragraph 0078-0080); and a second spacer (2) disposed on a second short-side wall portion that is arranged to be opposite to the first short-side wall portion of the cell (1) and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall (see Figures 2-3 and 8, and paragraph 0078-0080).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Stude with a first spacer disposed on a first short-side wall portion of the cell and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall; and a second spacer disposed on a second short-side wall portion that is arranged to be opposite to the first short-side wall portion of the cell and connecting the first outer wall and the second outer wall as taught by Yoshida. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to suppress heat conduction between adjacent battery cells and prevent thermal runaway.
However, Stude as modified by Yoshida does not explicitly a cooling unit disposed at a lower portion of the cell.
Zhang teaches a cooling unit (200) disposed at a lower portion of the cell (80) (see Figure 1 and page 4, lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell test apparatus as taught by the prior combination with a cooling unit disposed at a lower portion of the cell as taught by Zhang. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to reduce the highest temperature and temperature difference in the battery, and to spread of thermal runaway to the adjacent battery.
Regarding claim 19, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 16, and further teaches a length of the first spacer (2) is equal to a length of the second spacer (2), and the length of the first spacer (2) is determined by a sum of a thickness of the cell (1), a thickness of the first thermal-insulation layer (4), a thickness of the second thermal-insulation layer (4), and a thickness of the insulation layer (insulation (4) having multiple layers (4a, 4b)) (see Yoshida, paragraphs 0060, 0068-0069 and 0089).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude in view of Yoshida in and Zhang as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Li et al. (CN 211698110 U) (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 17, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 16, Stude further teaches the first thermal-insulation layer and the second thermal-insulation layer has a thickness of less that 7mm (see column 4, lines 54-58).
However, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first thermal-insulation layer and the second thermal-insulation layer comprises bakelite, and each of the first thermal-insulation layer and the second thermal-insulation layer has a thickness ranging from 10 mm to 30 mm.
Although, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang does not explicitly teach the first thermal-insulation layer and the second thermal-insulation layer has a thickness ranging from 10 mm to 30 mm, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first thermal-insulation layer and the second thermal-insulation layer with a thickness ranging from 10 mm to 30 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to suppress heat conduction between adjacent battery cells and prevent thermal runaway and meet battery thermal safety requirements.
Li teaches a thermal insulation layer comprising bakelite (see page 3, lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first thermal-insulation layer and the second thermal-insulation layer as taught by the prior combination with bakelite material as taught by Li. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide the first thermal-insulation layer and the second thermal-insulation layer with excellent heat resistance, high strength, excellent electrical insulation and dimensional stability. Additionally, Bakelite insulation material is widely available.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude in view of Yoshida in and Zhang as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Suganeev et al. (RU 2073285 C1) (hereinafter Suganeev).
Regarding claim 18, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 16.
However, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first outer wall and the second outer wall comprises stainless steel, and each of the first outer wall and the second outer wall has a thickness ranging from 17 mm and 35 mm.
Suganeev teaches each of the first outer wall and the second outer wall comprises stainless steel, and each of the first outer wall and the second outer wall has a thickness of 0.8mm (see page 5, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first outer wall and the second outer wall as taught by the prior combination with stainless steel material. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide a cost effective material with high heat resistance, high strength, increased safety and protects the battery from corrosion and harsh environments.
However, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang and Suganeev does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first outer wall and the second outer wall has a thickness ranging from 17 mm and 35 mm.
Although, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang and Suganeev does not explicitly teach each of the first outer wall and the second outer wall has a thickness ranging from 17 mm and 35 mm, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each of the first outer wall and the second outer wall has a thickness ranging from 17 mm and 35 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide mechanical protection to the battery cells and to meet battery thermal safety requirements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stude in view of Yoshida in and Zhang as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (KR 20210029121 A) (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 20, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang teaches all the limitations of claim 16, Stude further teaches the insulation layer (1) comprises an insulation sheet (2, 3, 5, 6) and an adhesive layer (7) (see Figures 1A-1C and column 10, lines 10-25)
However, Stude as modified by Yoshida and Zhang does not explicitly teach the adhesive layer is disposed on opposite sides of the insulation sheet.Kim teaches an adhesive layer (131c) is disposed on opposite sides of the insulation sheet (131a) (see Figure 12a).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulation sheet and the adhesive layer as taught by the prior combination with the adhesive layer being disposed on opposite sides of the insulation sheet as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to securely attach the insulation later to the battery cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the specific limitation of the determining the thickness of the outer wall of the cell test apparatus comprises: obtaining a first stress value of the end cell, and obtaining a second stress value of the at least one center cell, wherein a target stress value of the one or more target cells ranges from the first stress value to the second stress value, and the thickness of the outer wall is determined based on the target stress value.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the specific limitation of the determining the thickness of the outer wall of the cell test apparatus comprises: obtaining a first stress value of the end cell, and obtaining a second stress value of the at least one center cell, wherein a target stress value of the one or more target cells is determined to be a median between the first stress value and the second stress value, and the thickness of the outer wall is determined based on the target stress value.
Regarding claim 11 the closest prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the specific limitation of the analyzing the thermal and structural properties of the battery module comprises: obtaining a first stress value of the end cell; and obtaining a second stress value of the at least one center cell; and determining a thickness of each of the first outer wall and the second outer wall based on the first stress value and the second stress value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
