DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s election of Species A-1 (i.e., claim 2) and Species D-1 (i.e., claim 11) in the reply filed on 06/26/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B-2 (i.e., claims 5-6) and Species C-1 (i.e., claim 1) in the reply filed on 06/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: (i) with respect to Species B-1/2, “[the features [of Species B-1 and B-2] are not separate, unrelated inventions. Rather, they concern corresponding aspects of the same cell frame (e.g., 130 in the same battery module structure” and applicant briefly discusses the features/structure of Figures 3-4 (e.g., plurality of holes 130 h for mounting the battery cells 110 may be formed in the cell frame 130); and (ii) with respects to Species C-1/2, “…claim 1 (Species C-1) is an open-ended ‘comprising’ claim and does not affirmatively exclude a diffuse reflection member…”. This is not found persuasive because as set forth in the 06/11/26 election of species, (i) as to Species B-1/2, Species B-1 encompasses a structural/mechanical/functional/material feature different from that of Species B-2 (i.e. the plurality of holes vs. the resin frame for generating total internal reflection not including the plurality of holes per se); and (ii) as for Species C-1/2, Species C-1 encompasses a structural/mechanical/functional/material feature different from that of Species C-2 (i.e. the diffuse reflection member formed on a part of the cell frame surface vs. the cell frame without the diffuse reflection component per se) . In this respect, applicant has not yet provided any specific technical reason(s) or objective explanation to clearly support that Species B-1/2 and C-1/2, respectively, are not mutually exclusive in terms of either their structures, functional aspects, cooperative relationship, material/compositions, chemical properties and/or mechanical features and the likes within the context of the claimed invention. Further, applicant has not yet admitted on the written record that, or submitted or identified evidence to show, Species B-1/2 and C-1/2 are obvious variants. Therefore, the embodiments of B-1/2 and C-1/2, respectively, represent distinct and mutually exclusive species which do not overlap in scope. Moreover, applicant's attention is particularly directed to MPEP 809.02(a) which indicates how to identify species by illustrative figures, examples, mechanical means, particular materials, or other distinguishing characteristics. Accordingly, serious burden would be raised if the search of such different species was made as required for the separate, distinct and mutually exclusive species or embodiments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/24, 03/17/25 and 05/14/25 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/07/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by KR 10-2010-0100943 (herein KR’943).
As to claims 1-2, 5, 15:
KR’943 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery module/pack comprising a support/bottom plate; a cell frame having certain degree of transmittance placed on the support/bottom plate; a plurality of battery cells/units mounted thereon; an adhesive/curable polymeric resin layer disposed between the support/bottom plate and the plurality of battery cells/units (0080-0090; 0093-0100; 0102-0112; 0114-0120; see Figures 2-5). In this case, since the present claims fail to define the specific degree of light transmittance and the total internal reflection, it is deemed that such property is inherently present to certain degree in the cell of KR’943 which contains a resin-polymeric-based material. Figures 2-5, infra, illustrate the structure of the battery module/pack:
PNG
media_image1.png
314
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
304
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
256
248
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
246
314
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 12, 14:
KR’943 discloses cylindrical batteries; and the cell frame including paths, passages, channels or grooves (0080-0090; 0093-0100; 0102-0112; 0114-0120; see Figures 4-5).
Thus, the present claims are anticipated
(at least) Claim(s) 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hachtmann et al 2016/0336565.
As to claims 1, 15:
Hachtmann et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a battery module/pack comprising a support/bottom plate; a cell frame having certain degree of transmittance placed on the support/bottom plate; a plurality of battery cells/units mounted thereon; an adhesive/curable polymeric resin layer disposed between the support/bottom plate and the plurality of battery cells/units (Abstract; 0025-0035; 0038-0047; see Figures 1-6). In this case, since the present claims fail to define the specific degree of the specific degree of light transmittance, it is deemed that such property is inherently present to certain degree in the cell of Hachtmann et al.
Figures 1-6, infra, depict the structure of the battery module/pack:
PNG
media_image5.png
686
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
720
470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
520
684
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
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.
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(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2010-0100943 (herein KR’943) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman et al 2018/0316071.
KR’943 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the bottom cooling plate.
In this respect, Newman et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a battery module/pack comprising, inter alia, a plurality of battery units and a bottom cooling plate (Abstract; 0035-0036; see Figure 5).
PNG
media_image8.png
308
442
media_image8.png
Greyscale
By compounding the above teachings, it would have been within the ambit of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cooling plate of Newman et al as the bottom plate in KR’943 as Newman et al teach that the specifically discloses bottom cooling plate assists in effectively and efficiently dissipating heat by thermal conduction from the battery module/pack. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the battery module comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural, functional and material requirement as recited in dependent claim 6.
Claim 6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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 A. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights