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 Objections
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, it is suggested that claim 8 be amended to recite “each of the battery cells of the plurality of battery cells”.
Regarding claim 18, it is suggested that claim 18 be amended to recite “the refrigerant passages of the plurality of refrigerant passages are connected to each other”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a first end frame and a second end frame coupled to both ends of the center frame”. It is unclear what ends are being referred to with the recitation of “both ends”.
Claims 2-18 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear which sides are being referred to when the claim recites “second vent holes on both sides of the compressing force generator”.
Claims 10 is indefinite as it depends from an indefinite base and fails to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “the first side frame and the second side frame each comprise the adhesive injection port, the first inclined portion and the second inclined portion, and the first gap portion and the second gap portion on at least one side in the second direction”. However, the adhesive injection port, the first and second inclined portions, and the first and second gap portions are claimed as being part of the central frame in claim 14. It is unclear how the same injection port, for example, can be simultaneously present on the first side frame, the second side frame, and the center frame.
It is suggested that claim 16 be amended to recite: “the first side frame and the second side frame each comprise an adhesive injection port, a first inclined portion and a second inclined portion, and a first gap portion and a second gap portion”.
Further, it is unclear what part of the battery pack is the point of reference for the statement “on at least one side in the second direction”. For example, does this mean on at least one side of each of the first side frame and the second side frame.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites “a refrigerant inlet and a refrigerant outlet at one end in the first direction and at both ends in the second direction”. It is unclear if there is both an outlet and an inlet at both ends in the second direction. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpretated as requiring an inlet and an outlet at one end in the first direction, wherein the inlet and outlet are present at different ends in the second direction, as depicted in Fig. 2 and described in paragraph [0099] of the instant specification , pending further clarification from applicant.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takada (US 2023/0238661 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takada teaches a rechargeable battery pack (Takada Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells stacked in a first direction (40, Takada Fig. 1);
a center frame comprising a first bottom and a first side wall supporting the at least one cell stack (annotated Takada Fig. 3 shown below, the partition 85 is a wall and has a bottom);
a first side frame and a second side frame each comprising a second bottom and a second side wall (annotated Takada Fig. 3 shown below, one partition 85 and one installation space S taken together),
the first side frame and the second side frame being coupled to the center frame in a second direction crossing the first direction and supporting a cell narrow side of the at least one cell stack (coupled via 88, Takada Fig. 3);
and a first end frame and a second end frame coupled to both ends of the center frame, the first side frame, and the second side frame in the first direction to support a cell wide side of the at least one cell stack (annotated Takada Fig. 3 shown below)
PNG
media_image1.png
842
1140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Takada teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Takada further teaches the at least one cell stack comprises a plurality of cell stacks (Takada Fig. 1), and wherein the rechargeable battery pack further comprises a lateral center frame (88, Takada Fig. 3) coupled to an intermediate portion of the center frame, the first side frame, and the second side frame in the first direction to support cell wide sides of a first cell stack and a second cell stack of the plurality of cell stacks on both sides of the lateral center frame in the first direction (Takada Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Takada teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Takada further teaches the at least one cell stack comprises a first cell stack and a second cell stack arranged in the first direction, and wherein a length of each of the center frame, the first side frame, and the second side frame corresponds to a combined length of the first cell stack and the second cell stack in the first direction (Takada Fig. 3).
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takada (alternative interpretation).
Regarding claim 1, Takada teaches a rechargeable battery pack (Takada Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells stacked in a first direction (40, Takada Fig. 1);
a center frame comprising a first bottom and a first side wall supporting the at least one cell stack (annotated Takada Fig. 3 shown below, the partition 85 is a wall and has a bottom);
a first side frame and a second side frame each comprising a second bottom and a second side wall (annotated Takada Fig. 3 shown below)
the first side frame and the second side frame being coupled to the center frame in a second direction crossing the first direction and supporting a cell narrow side of the at least one cell stack (coupled via 88, Takada Fig. 3);
and a first end frame and a second end frame coupled to both ends of the center frame, the first side frame, and the second side frame in the first direction to support a cell wide side of the at least one cell stack (annotated Takada Fig. 3 shown below)
PNG
media_image2.png
821
1448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Takada teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Takada further teaches the first side frame and the second side frame each comprise a flange extending lengthwise along the first direction and extending outward in the second direction (annotated Takada Fig. 3 shown below), and wherein the flange is configured to be mounted on a vehicle (flange of Takada battery pack is capable of being mounted on a vehicle, Takada [4-6], [37]).
PNG
media_image3.png
834
1256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
The rejections presented hereinafter refer to the first interpretation of Takada presented above (not the alternative interpretation).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Fujiwara (US 2020/0194753 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Takada teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Takada further teaches a pressurizing body outside the insulating members at at least one end of the both ends of the at least one cell stack in the first direction (shim 39, Takada [50]).Takada does not teach insulating members at both ends of the at least one cell stack in the first direction.
Fujiwara teaches an insulating member located at both ends of a cell stack (24, Fujiwara Fig. 2) that deforms with battery cell volume changes (Fujiwara [32]) that is used in conjunction with a high strength resin material (23, Fujiwara Fig. 2, [32]) that acts as a pressurizing body, as used in Takada (shim, Takada [50]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add insulating members to both ends of the cell stack in the configuration taught by Fujiwara, thus resulting in the pressurizing body being outside the insulating members, in order to accommodate battery cell volume changes.
Regarding claim 5, Takada in view of Fujiwara teaches all features of claims 1 and 4, as described above. Modified Takada, as described above, does not teach the pressurizing body comprising: a first plane portion on the at least one end of the at least one cell stack; a second plane portion spaced apart from the first plane portion by a gap; and a compressing force generator supported on the first end frame or the second end frame, wherein the compressing force generator is configured to screw into the second plane portion and cause the first plane portion to compress the at least one cell stack.
Fujiwara teaches a pressurizing body used in a battery module (23, 30, 21, and 20 taken together, Fujiwara Fig. 2) comprising:
a first plane portion on the at least one end of the at least one cell stack (23, Fujiwara Fig. 2)
a second plane portion spaced apart from the first plane portion by a gap (20, Fujiwara Fig. 2)
a compressing force generator (21, Fujiwara Fig. 2)
wherein the compressing force generator is configured to screw into the second plane portion and cause the first plane portion to compress the at least one cell stack (Fujiwara Fig. 3, [17]).
Fujiwara teaches that this pressurizing body configuration can have the beneficial effects of allowing for battery cell expansion and maintaining a uniform interval between electrodes of the battery cell (Fujiwara [33]). Fujiwara teaches that allowing expansion of a battery cell (electrode assembly) is important in order to prevent damage to the power storage device and that “it is an important subject to allow the expansion of the electrode assembly while uniformly maintaining the electrode interval” (Fujiwara [4]).
Since Fujiwara teaches that it is known and desirable to both allow for battery cell expansion and maintain the interval between electrodes of a battery cell, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pressurizing body of Takada for the pressurizing member of Fujiwara, thus resulting in the compressing force generator being supported on the first end frame or the second end frame of Takada, in order to obtain the predictable result of a battery pack capable of allowing for battery cell expansion while also maintaining the interval between electrodes of a battery cell and prevent damage to the battery pack.
Regarding claim 6, Takada in view of Fujiwara teaches all features of claims 1, 4, and 5, as described above. Modified Takada further teaches the first plane portion having an area corresponding to the cell wide side of the at least one cell stack (Fujiwara Fig. 3) and the pressurizing body further comprises an inclined surface portion connecting the first plane portion and the second plane portion in a direction inclined to the first direction (30, Fujiwara Fig. 3 spring has a portion that is an inclined surface).
Modified Takada does not explicitly teach the second plane portion having an area smaller than the area of the first plane portion. However, modified Takada depicts an area of the second plane portion having an area smaller than the area of the first plane portion, where the area of the first plane portion is an area corresponding to the cell wide side of the stack (annotated Fujiwara Fig. 1 shown below). Since this relationship between the areas is depicted in the Fujiwara reference, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the battery pack of modified Takada to have this depicted relationship between the first plane portion area and the second plane portion area. It is noted that the claim does not require a specific “area” for the second plane portion.
Additionally, there are only three options for the relationship between the two areas: they are the same, the area of the first plane portion is greater than that of the second plane portion, or the area of the first plane portion is less than that of the second plane portion. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected one of these three options and tune the area of the plane portions to accommodate for a desired application of the battery pack or to achieve a desired force/compression.
PNG
media_image4.png
812
1005
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Fujiwara, as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 above, and in further view of Sakai (US 2017/0288183 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Takada in view of Fujiwara teaches all features of claims 1, 4, 5, and 6, as described above. Modified Takada further teaches each of the plurality of battery cells comprising electrode terminals (terminals, Takada [45]). Modified Takada does not teach the first plane portion and the second plane portion each comprising a notch at a portion where the electrode terminals are located.
Sakai teaches a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells and an end plate that includes notches at a portion where electrode terminals are located (29, Sakai Fig. 1A). Since Sakai teaches that it is known and suitable to include notches in end plates at a portion where the electrode terminals are located, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada to include the first plane portion and the second plane portion each comprising a notch at a portion where the electrode terminals are located in order the obtain the predictable result of a battery pack with an end plate configuration suitable for a desired application.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Fujiwara, as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, and 6 above, and in further view of Kruger (US 2012/0045672 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Takada in view of Fujiwara teaches all features of claims 1, 4, 5, and 6, as described above. Takada teaches a pack cover on the first side frame, the second side frame, the first end frame, and the second end frame (lid, Takada [73]).
Modified Takada does not teach the first and second plane portions comprising vents and at least one of the first end frame or the second end frame comprising a pack vent connected to the second vent holes.
Kruger teaches that it is known and suitable to add vent holes (34, Kruger Fig. 4) to structures adjacent to battery cells in order to allow generated gases to escape (Kruger abstract, Fig. 4). Kruger further teaches the use of an additional vent hole (38, Kruger Fig. 4) and a pack vent (40, Kruger Fig. 4) in order to provide a route for gases to vent away from a battery pack (Kruger [16]).
Since Kruger teaches that it is known and suitable to add vent holes to allow for gases to be removed from a battery pack, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a first vent hole to the first plane portion, a second vent to the second plane portion, and a pack vent in the end frame, wherein all of these vents are connected, in order to provide a path for generated gases to be removed from the battery pack.
Regarding the presence of second vent holes on both sides of the compressing force generator, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a second vent in the second plane portion on a different side of the compressing force generator in order to provide an additional path for generated gas to reach the pack vent and exit the battery pack. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 11-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Katz (Semat, Henry and Katz, Robert. Physics, Chapter 9: Hydrodynamics (Fluids in Motion). Robert Katz Publications. 143. (1958)).
Regarding claim 11, Takada teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Takada further teaches the first side frame and the second side frame each comprising:
an adhesive injection port at a top of the first side frame or the second side frame in a third direction (90, Takada Fig. 5)
and a gap portion configured to guide adhesive to the cell narrow side and a cell bottom of the at least one cell stack (gap g, Takada Fig. 5)
wherein the rechargeable battery pack further comprises an adhesive in the gap portion (paste P, Takada Fig. 5 [54])
Takada does not teach an inclined portion connected to the adhesive injection port.
Katz teaches that a decrease in the outlet area a fluid moves through results in an increase in the fluid speed (Katz pg. 166) and that having an inclined portion can cause this change in area (Katz Fig. 9-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an inclined portion connected to the adhesive injection port and inclined inward in the second direction, thus resulting in a gap portion connected to the inclined portion, in order to increase the flow speed of the paste into the gap.
Regarding claim 12, Takada in view of Katz teaches all features of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Takada further teaches an insulation having a length (L) and a height (H) on side and bottom surfaces of the at least one cell stack (13, 23 Takada Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Takada in view of Katz teaches all features of claims 1 and 11, as described above. Modified Takada further teaches the first side frame and the second side frame each comprise the adhesive injection port, the inclined portion, and the gap portion on at least one side in the second direction (see rejection above for claim 11).
Regarding claim 14, Takada teaches all features of claim 1, a described above. Takada further teaches:
an adhesive (paste P, Takada Fig. 5 [54])
wherein the center frame (annotated Takada Fig. 3 shown above) comprises: an adhesive injection port at a top of the center frame in a third direction (90, Takada Fig. 5)
the first gap portion and the second gap portion being configured to guide the adhesive to the cell narrow side of the plurality of battery cells on both sides of the center frame in the second direction, wherein the first gap portion and the second gap portion are substantially filled with the adhesive (sections of gap g located to the left and right of element 92, Takada Fig. 5)
Takada does not teach a first inclined portion connected to the adhesive injection port and inclined inward in the second direction and a second inclined portion connected to the adhesive injection port and inclined outward in the second direction.
Katz teaches that a decrease in the outlet area a fluid moves through results in an increase in the fluid speed (Katz pg. 166) and that having an inclined portion can cause this change in area (Katz Fig. 9-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added first and second inclined portions connected to the adhesive injection port and inclined inward in the second direction, thus resulting in a first gap portion connected to the first inclined portion and a second gap portion connected to the second inclined portion, in order to increase the flow speed of the paste into the gap.
Regarding claim 15, Takada in view of Katz teaches all features of claims 1 and 14, as described above. Takada further teaches a first insulation and a second insulation each having an insulation having a length (L) and a height (H) on side and bottom surfaces of the at least one cell stack (13, 23 Takada Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Takada in view of Katz teaches all features of claims 1, 14, and 15, as described above. Takada further teaches the first side frame and the second side frame each comprising an adhesive injection port (90, Takada Fig. 5).
Modified Takada does not teach the first and second frame each comprising a first inclined portion and a second inclined portion, and a first gap portion and a second gap portion on at least one side in the second direction.
Katz teaches that a decrease in the outlet area a fluid moves through results in an increase in the fluid speed (Katz pg. 166) and that having an inclined portion can cause this change in area (Katz Fig. 9-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added first and second inclined portions connected to the adhesive injection port, thus resulting in a first gap portion and a second gap portion on at least one side in the second direction, in order to increase the flow speed of the paste into the gap.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Itsuki (US 2011/0206967 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Takada teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Takada does not teach a plurality of refrigerant passages. However, Takada does teach that a coolant pipe is below the battery cells (Takada [48]).
Itsuki teaches a cooling plate (30, Itsuki Fig. 8) comprising a plurality of refrigerant passages (50a, Itsuki Fig. 9) connected to each other in a first direction located under a battery cell stack (Itsuki Fig. 8) in order to cool the battery cells (Itsuki abstract). Itsuki further teaches the plurality of refrigerant passages being connected to a refrigerant inlet and a refrigerant outlet at one end in the first direction and at both ends in the second direction (51 and 52, Itsuki Fig. 9).
Since Takada is silent to the particular configuration of the coolant pipe and Itsuki teaches that the above described configuration of a cooling plate comprising refrigerant passage located below a battery cell stack is a known and suitable structure for cooling battery cells, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takada to have the first bottom and the second bottom each comprise a plurality of refrigerant passages connected to each other in the first direction and connected to a refrigerant inlet and a refrigerant outlet at one end in the first direction and at both ends in the second direction, as taught by Itsuki, in order to cool the battery cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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: The prior art does not teach or suggest a rib connecting the first plane portion and the second plane portion in the first direction, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim (US 2020/0127258 A1): appears to disclose a battery pack including multiple cell stacks, a center frame, a first side frame, a second side frame, and end frames (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights