Not 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) are: “fixing member is configured to close”, and “venting hole is configured to discharge” in claim 2, “fixing member is configured to close” in claim 3, “fixing member is configured to be opened” in claim 5, “a jig insertion portion configured to receive” in claim 7, “fixing member is configured to contact” in claim 9, “cell cover is configured to support” in claim 10, “an inner space configured to accommodate” in claim 11, and “a control module configured to control charging” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lei (CN113794011 A for prior art discussion refer to cited machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lei discloses a battery cell block (figure 3 ,4, and 5, examiner figure A) comprising: a plurality of cell units (single battery, ref. 100, figure 2, 3) including at least one pouch-type battery cell (ref. 110, figure 2, para. 0051) and a cell cover (casing assembly, ref. 120) at least partially surrounding the at least one pouch-type battery cell (para. 0048, figure 2), wherein the plurality of cell units is stacked in a stacking direction (figure 3-4, para. 0056) ; and a fixing member (fastening belt, ref. 400, figure 5) fixing the plurality of cell units in a fixed state by surrounding a stack of the plurality of cell units (para. 0022, figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
1043
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner figure A
Regarding claim 10, Lei discloses the cell cover (ref. 120) is configured to support at least one pouch-type battery cell (ref.110, figure 2, para. 0048) in an erected state (figure 2-6).
Regarding claim 11, Lei discloses a battery pack (figure 3 and 5, para. 0074), comprising the battery cell block (figure 5, examiner figure A) and a pack case (box body, ref. 210) having inner space to accommodate the battery cell block (ref. 201, figure 5).
Regarding claim 12 the cell cover (ref. 120) has an open portion (ref. 121) through which at least one side of the at least one pouch -type battery cell faces the pack case , (figure 2, para. 0053). Lei further discloses through figure 6, the open portion faces the pack case (ref. 210).
Regarding claim 13, Lei discloses a control module configured to control charging and discharging of the battery by disclosing a BDU and BMS integrated structure (para. 0084).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN113794011 A, for prior art discussion refer to attached machine translation) in view of Hashimoto (US PG Pub. 2018/0190954).
Lei is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 2, Lei discloses the venting hole (ref. 122) is positioned on the cell cover (figure 2, para. 0051) and the venting hole is capable of discharging gas (para. 0052).
Lei fails to disclose the fixing member is configured to close the venting hole. The limitation “the fixing member is configured to close the venting hole” is a functional limitation. This limitation is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only the fixing member be capable of covering, or otherwise closing the venting hole.
Hashimoto discloses a cell stacked body (ref. 5, figure 3) stacking a plurality of secondary battery cells with a fixing member (fastening member, ref. 4, para. 0010) fastening the cell stack body disposed on the upper surface of the cell stack (ref. 4, figure 2, para. 0010) Hashimoto further discloses in an embodiment the fastening member (ref. 4F, figure 14, 15 para. 0082-0083) disposed to overlap the gas exhaust valves (ref. 14, figure 14, 15, para. 0015, 0083) there by covering the venting hole and it meets the limitation “configured to close the venting hole” by being capable of closing the vent hole. Hashimoto further discloses the fastening member (ref. 4F) has grooves (ref. 4b, para. 0083) to communicate with the gas exhaust valve (ref. 14) and outside. Therefore, gas can be exhausted to the outside via grooves (ref. 4b) when gas exhaust valves are opened (para. 0083). Thus, fastening member can be used not only as the function of fastening cell stacked body but also as a gas exhaust route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixing member of Lei as taught by Hashimoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the fixing member as taught by Hashimoto so the fixing member can be used not only as the function of fastening cell stacked body but also as a gas exhaust route.
Regarding claim 3, Lei discloses plurality of venting holes (ref. 122) on the cell cover (figure 2, para. 0051).
Regarding claim 4, Lei discloses the fixing member extends along the stacking direction (ref. 400, figure 5), so as to surround the stack (para. 0022 - 0023).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Lei fails to disclose the fixing member is configured to opened by an ejection pressure from the venting hole and the fixing member includes a cut portion or a notch portion which is aligned with the venting valve.
The limitation “the fixing member is configured to be opened by an ejection pressure or a temperature of a material ejected from the venting hole” in claim 5 is a functional limitation reciting a capability of fixing member. Hashimoto discloses the fixing member (ref. 4F) has grooves (ref. 4b, figure 15, para. 0082-0083) on the lower surface and at the positions corresponding to the venting hole (ref. 14, para. 0083). Hashimoto further discloses the gas can be exhausted to the outside via grooves (ref. 4b) when the exhaust valve (ref. 14) is opened. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Hashimoto’s grooves (ref. 4 b) on the fixing member (ref. 4F) are open thereby meeting the limitation, fixing member configured to be opened by an ejection pressure during venting. Hashimoto further discloses such a fixing member does not disturb the gas exhaust operation of the venting hole during venting.(para. 0082-0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the modify the fixing member of Lei as taught by Hashimoto for the fixing member not to disturb the gas exhaust operation of the venting hole preventing the increase in the internal pressure of secondary battery cells.
Regarding claim 9, Lei discloses the cell cover (casing/housing assembly, ref. 120) comprises a first cover portion , a second cover portion and a third cover portion connecting the first and second cover portion and covering the upper end portion of atleast one pouch -type battery cell (figure 2, examiner figure B, para. 0053-0055). Lei further discloses the venting hole (ref. 122, figure 2, para. 0051) in the third cover portion (top portion, para. 0029) so that gas is discharged upwards and fixing member (ref. 400), wraps the periphery of the stacked battery cells thereby contacting the third cover portion (para. 0022-0023, 0080-0082, 0087) as disclosed in figure 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
980
803
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner figure B
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Lei fails to discloses a vehicle comprising the battery cell block and a battery pack.
Hashimoto discloses a vehicle equipped with a battery cell block and a battery pack (power supply device) mounted in a vehicle (figure 18, para. 0088-0090). Hasimoto further discloses the power supply device is mounted mainly in an electric vehicle such as a hybrid car or an electric car, and is used as a power source that supplies power to a travel motor of the vehicle and makes the vehicle travel.
It would have been obvious to add a cell block and battery pack as taught by the combination of Lei and Hashimoto to be used in vehicle as taught by Hashimoto so as to supply power to the vehicle motor.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (CN113794011 A for prior art discussion refer to attached machine translation) in view of (CN210723151U, for prior art discussion refer to attached machine translation).
Lei is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claims 7 and 8 Lei fails to disclose the fixing member includes a jig insertion portion and the jig insertion portion is disposed at an upper corner of the fixing member.
Mao discloses a battery module (ref. 4, figure 2) with a fixing member (bundling strap, ref. 1, figure 2) surrounding the battery stack (figure 2, para. 0009). Mao further discloses the fixing member (ref. 4 ) has a jig insertion portion (bolt sleeves, ref. 2) configured to receive a jig (fixing bold, ref. 3) and the jig insertion portion is disposed at an upper corner of the fixing member as disclosed by figure 2. Mao discloses such a battery module ties up simple structure and reliably make battery module material cost and manufacturing cost cheaper, reduces weight, and thus increases energy density (para. 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixing member of Lei as taught by Mao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the fixing member as taught by Mao so that a jig insertion portion can be added to the upper corner portion of the fixing member for low economical cost and lighter weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788 06/23/2025
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights