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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Application No. 18/693,753 to Lee et al., assigned to LG Energy Solution, Ltd., Seoul, Korea, filed 03/20/2024 and published as U.S. PG Publication 20240/396144A1 on 11/28/2024.
This application is a 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage entry of International Patent Application PCT/KR2023/000474 filed 01/11/2023 and claims the benefit of Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2022-0003809 filed on 01/11/2022 and Korean Patent Application No. K10-2023-0003719 filed on 01/10/2023 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as filed on 03/20/2024 stands as follows:
4.1 Currently amended 1-23
Claims 1-23 are currently pending in this application. All the pending claims are under full consideration.
Foreign Priority Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim to foreign priority benefit from Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2022-0003809 filed on 01/11/2022 and Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2023-0003719 filed on 01/10/2023. Certified copies of the priority documents have been filed and are made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2024; 02/18/2025; 06/25/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. Duly initialed and signed copies are attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statements are being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/20/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-7, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0058971) in view of Kim (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0079640)
Regarding claim 1 and 23 Smith discloses a battery pack including a battery array (Smith paragraph 0004), the battery array includes a plurality of battery cells (Smith paragraph 0006) the battery pack considered equivalent to the battery assembly, and the battery array to plurality of battery cell groups each containing at least one battery cell stacked along a first direction (Smith Fig. 2).
The battery pack includes heat exchanger plates (Smith paragraph 0004) and the battery array positioned against the heat exchanger plate (Smith paragraph 0034), the heat exchanger plate may function as a heat sink (Smith paragraph 0051), and is considered equivalent to the heat sink. The heat exchanger plate 72 may include a plate body 74 and a coolant circuit 75 formed inside the plate body 74, and the coolant circuit 75 may include one or more passageways that extend inside the plate body 74 (Smith Fig. 2, paragraph 0052) considered equivalent to the cooling tube through which coolant flows.
The battery array, equivalent to the battery cell groups, comprise an array frame (Smith paragraph 0004) and the battery array includes a plurality of battery cells, and at least one battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is held within the array frame (Smith paragraph 0007). The array frame 66 may include a frame body 76 extending along the longitudinal axis A2, and the frame body 76 may be rectangular shaped (i.e., four sided) and may include a top wall 78, a bottom wall 80 (Smith Fig. 3, paragraph 0057). The top wall and the bottom wall of the array frame are equivalent to the first cell frame and the second cell frame; the top wall 78 and the bottom wall 80 (Smith Fig. 3) are equivalent to the first cell frame located on an upper part of the battery cell , and the second cell frame located on the lower part of the battery cells.
The coolant circuit 7, considered equivalent to the cooling tube, establishes a meandering path of passageways inside the plate body 74 (Smith paragraph 0052) the meandering path is a winding path that has a bent part or a curved shape comprises at least one bent part defining a curved shape.
Smith does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooling tube extends across both side surfaces of at least one of the battery cell groups while the bent part extends across the upper part or the lower part of the at least one battery cell group as recited in claims 1-3.
Kim discloses a water-cooled battery module capable of enhancing cooling efficiency of a battery cell by increasing an area in which the battery cell and a cooling device are in contact (Kim paragraph 0019). Kim discloses the cooling channel units may include linear channel portions formed to have a shape of a plurality of plates and disposed to be parallel between the plurality of battery cells; and curved channel portions having a curved shape and configured to connect the linear channel portions spaced apart from one another in outer edges of the plurality of battery cells (Kim Fig. 4, 5, paragraph 0021).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have modified the cooling plate of Smith by the teaching of Kim and to have made the cooling plate be in contact with both side surfaces and upper and lower part of the battery cells and by doing so increase the area in which the battery cells and the cooling plate are in contact to enhance the cooling efficiency of the battery cell as taught by Kim (Kim paragraph 0019). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 2 the battery assembly, Kim discloses wherein the at least one bent parts includes a first bent part and second bent part, the first -bent part extending across both side surfaces and an upper part of first-battery cell group, the second bent part extending across both side surfaces and a lower part of second battery cell group, the cooling tubes defining a zigzag shape (Kim Fig. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 3 in the battery pack of Smith as modified by the cooling plate of Kim the bent parts of the cooling plate would be extended across both side surfaces of the battery cell and the first cell frame, and the second bent part extending across both side surface of the second battery cell and the second cell frame (Kim Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4 Smith discloses battery array, equivalent to the battery cell groups, comprise an array frame (Smith paragraph 0004) and the battery array includes a plurality of battery cells, and at least one battery cell of the plurality of battery cells is held within the array frame (Smith paragraph 0004, 0007). The array frame 66 may include a frame body 76 extending along the longitudinal axis A2, and the frame body 76 may be rectangular shaped (i.e., four sided) and may include a top wall 78, a bottom wall 80 (Smith Fig. 3, paragraph 0057). The top wall and the bottom wall of the array frame are equivalent to the first cell frame and the second cell frame; the top wall 78 and the bottom wall 80 (Smith Fig. 3) are equivalent to the first cell frame located on an upper part of the battery cell , and the second cell frame located on the lower part of the battery cells. Smith discloses an enclosure assembly 58 houses each battery array 25 and is an enclosure that includes a tray 60 and a cover 62 that is secured to the tray 60 (Smith paragraph 0048), the cover is considered equivalent to the upper frame and the lower part of the tray is considered equivalent to the lower frame.
Regarding claim 5 Smith discloses the array frame 66 may include a frame body 76 extending along the longitudinal axis may be rectangular shaped (i.e., four sided) and may include a top wall 78, a bottom wall 80, (Smith Fig. 3, paragraph 0057) are respectively connected to the enclosure upper part and lower part equivalent to the upper frame and lower frame (Smith Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6 structural component 96 is positioned between the tray 60, equivalent to the lower frame, and the battery cell stack, the structural component is a foam block (Smith Fig. 5, paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 7 Smith as modified by Kim discloses each opposing side of the frame body 76 may establish a pocket 85 that is sized and shaped to receive a battery cell 56. (Smith paragraph 0059). The pocket 85 is considered equivalent to the housing groove in which the battery cell is seated. Smith does not explicitly disclose a protrusion part formed on a surface opposite the surface on which the pocket 85 considered equivalent to the housing groove. Smith, however, discloses the battery cell array frame has a standoff feature protrudes from and integrated with the array frame in a direction towards the heat exchanger plate (Smith paragraph 0007, 0020) that disposed on the lower tray equivalent to the lower frame; thus, the standoff feature is considered equivalent to the protrusion part formed on the cell frame on a surface opposite to the pocket.
Regarding claim 22 Smith discloses the heat exchanger plate may be part of a liquid cooling system (Smith paragraph 0051), and may include a coolant circuit inside the plate (Smith paragraph 0052), such a cooling system is known to have inflow and outflow manifolds.
Claim 8-13, 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0058971) in view of Kim (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0079640) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Ahn (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0050525)
The discussion of Smith and Kim as applied to claim 7 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 8 and 9 Smith is silent about an insertion hole in the upper frame and lower frame to receive the standoff of the cell frame. Ahn discloses a battery pack (Ahn paragraph 0010) including a frame accommodating the cell and a pair cases coupled to opposite side of the frame (Ahn paragraph 0011).
Ahn discloses coupling grooves 26, 27, formed at a side surface of the cell frame 20, are connected to the pair of cases 41 , 42 by the insertion grooves 24, 25 (Ahn Fig. 1, 3-4, paragraph 0065), the grooves 26, 27 considered equivalent to the protrusion, the insertion grooves are equivalent to the insertion holes and the pair of cases are considered equivalent to the upper frame and lower frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have modified the lower frame and upper frame of Smith and made the insertion grooves equivalent to the through hole to couple the cell frame 20 to the pair of upper and lower frames for tightly coupling the cell frames to the upper and lower frames. According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 10, 11, 15, 16 since the coupling grooves 26, 27 are coupled to the insertion grooves 24, 25 (Ah paragraph 0065) the coupling grooves must have a size smaller than the insertion grooves. The coupling grooves are analogous to the claimed protrusions that are movable in a first direction. It would have also been obvious to change the shape of the coupling grooves and the insertion grooves. According to the MPEP a change in shape or size is generally considered as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Rgearding claims 12 the coupling grooves, considered equivalent to the moving part in an embodiment can be on the pair of cases 41, 42 (Ah Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13 the coupling grooves 26, 27 equivalent to the moving part are at least two in number (Ah paragraph 0065, Fig, 6), considered equivalent to the first moving part and the second moving part.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0058971) in view of Kim (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0079640) and further in view of Ahn (U.S. PG Publication 2015/0050525) as applied to claim 11, and Xu et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2021/0313654)
The discussion of Smith, Kim and Ahn as applied to claim 11 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 14 Smith is silent about the first cell frame and second cell frame are adhered to the upper frame and a lower frame through an adhesive layer. Xu discloses a battery module includes a plurality of battery cells and a frame structure for fixing the battery cells (Xu paragraph 0077). Xu discloses in a specific embodiment, a battery pack may include a case and a plurality of battery cells, where the case has a cavity, and the plurality of battery cells are located in the cavity and may be connected to the case. Specifically, the battery cells may be bonded to an inner wall of the case by using an adhesive (Xu paragraph 0077). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have modified the battery pack of Smith by the disclosure of Xu and to have used adhesive member to adhere the battery cells frame to the inner wall of the case, considered equivalent to the upper frame and lower frame, using an adhesive. Such a modification is considered the use known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Claim 17, 18, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0058971) in view of Kim (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0079640) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ha et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0078958)
The discussion of Smith and Kim as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 17 Smith discloses the e battery cells 56 of the battery array 25 are supported, held, and/or retained together by a support structure 64 disposed around an outer perimeter of the cell stack, and may include opposing side plates 70 (Smith Fig. 2, paragraph 0049), but Smith is silent the side plate has a leaf spring.
Ha discloses a battery module (Ha paragraph 0020, 0110) and the module housing may include a leaf spring therein, and the cell stack may be pressed by the leaf spring (Ha paragraph 0018) positioned on a side plate (Ha paragraph 0071) to provide optimal pressure range (Ha paragraph 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill to have modified the battery assembly of Smith by the leaf spring disclosed in the battery module of Ha to provide optimal pressure to the battery module (Ha paragraph 0021). According to the MPEP this modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 C).
Regarding claim 18 Ha discloses the housing may include a single leaf spring (Ha paragraph 0018) and is silent about a plurality of leaf spring members. However, using more than one and plurality of leaf spring members would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, since having more than one leaf spring is considered duplication of parts, and according to the MPEP it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI).
Regarding claim 19 the side plate 312 , 313 has a leaf spring that is recessed towards the stack of the battery cells (Ha Fig. 6).
Claim 20, 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0058971) in view of Kim (U.S. PG Publication 2016/0079640), and further in view of Ha et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0078958) as applied to claim 17, and Nietling et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2017/0125756)
The discussion of Smith, Kim and Ha as applied to claim 17 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 20 Smith is silent about the side plate comprise a composite material including fiber reinforced plastic or carbon fiber reinforced plastic. Nietling disclose a battery module (Nietling paragraph 0006) has end plates, side plates and a base plate (Nietling Fig. 3, paragraph 0020), and the side plates are fiber reinforced plastics (Nietling paragraph 0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have made the side plate in the battery module of Smith as modified by Ha a fiber reinforced plastic disclosed by Nietling (Nietling paragraph 0042) to provide the desired structural strength for the module (Nietling paragraph 0030). Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 C).
Regarding claim 21 the fiber material of the fiber reinforced plastic of the side plate can be fiber glass (Nietling paragraph 0042).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights