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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “the module support has a shore hardness…” in lines 1-2. For consistency in terminology throughout the claims, the examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “the module support part has a shore hardness…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2012/0208047 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Park discloses a battery pack (1) comprising: at least one battery cell (core pack, 100); a circuit module (protection circuit module, 200) having element components (protection device, 220) mounted on a mounting surface (substrate, 210) and electrically connected to the at least one battery cell (core pack, 100) (Figure 1 and 6, [0038-0040]). Park further discloses a pack frame (frame, 300) having a cell seating part (first region, 300A) in which the at least one battery cell (core pack, 100) is seated and a module seating part (second region, 300B) on which the circuit module (protection circuit module, 200) is seated (Figures 1 and 9, [0038, 0045-0046]). Park further discloses a module support part (elastic portion, 314) inserted into the module seating part (second region, 300B) to support the circuit module (protection circuit module, 200) (Figure 5D, [0053-0054]). Park further teaches that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) may include an elastic member such that the mounting surface (substrate, 210) may be stably supported by an elastic force of the module support part (elastic portion, 314) (Figure 5D, [0054]).
The examiner notes that the claim limitation requiring that the module support part is configured to be elastically deformable upon contacting the element components is a functional limitation that does not appear to provide any additional structure to the claimed battery pack that would distinguish over Park since Park discloses that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) may include an elastic member such that the mounting surface (substrate, 210) may be stably supported by an elastic force of the module support part (elastic portion, 314) and that the element components (protection device, 220) are mounted on the mounting surface (substrate, 210) (Figures 1, 5D, and 6, [0038-0040, 0054]). Thus, the module support part (elastic portion, 314) of Park is fully capable of performing the limitation of Claim 1 requiring that the module support part is configured to be elastically deformable upon contacting the element components (MPEP 2114). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Park further teaches that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) may include an elastic member such that the mounting surface (substrate, 210) may be stably supported by an elastic force of the module support part (elastic portion, 314) (Figure 5D, [0054]). Park further discloses that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) has a contact surface (see annotated Figure 5D below) facing the mounting surface (substrate, 210) (Figure 5D, [0054]).
The examiner notes that the claim limitation requiring that the module support part is configured to be elastically deformable upon contacting the element components is a functional limitation that does not appear to provide any additional structure to the claimed battery pack that would distinguish over Park since Park discloses that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) may include an elastic member such that the mounting surface (substrate, 210) may be stably supported by an elastic force of the module support part (elastic portion, 314) and that the element components (protection device, 220) are mounted on the mounting surface (substrate, 210) (Figures 1, 5D, and 6, [0038-0040, 0054]). Thus, the module support part (elastic portion, 314) of Park is fully capable of performing the limitation of Claim 2 requiring that the module support part is configured to be elastically deformable upon contacting the element components (MPEP 2114). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5D (Park US 2012/0208047 A1)
Regarding Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) has a block shape (see Figure 5D) disposed between the supporting portion (310/313) of the module seating part (second region, 300B) and the mounting surface (substrate, 210) (Figure 5D, [0053-0054]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the module seating part (second region, 300B) has a pair of sidewalls (see annotated Figure 5D below) and a seating surface (see annotated Figure 5D below) provided between the pair of sidewalls (see annotated Figure 5D below) (Figure 5D, [0053-0054]). Park further discloses that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) is inserted into a space formed by the pair of sidewalls (see annotated Figure 5D below) and the seating surface (see annotated Figure 5D below) (Figure 5D, [0053-0054]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
PNG
media_image2.png
593
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5D (Park US 2012/0208047 A1)
Regarding Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 4):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 4 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the seating surface (see annotated Figure 5D above) is configured as a flat surface (see Figure 5D). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 4):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 4 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) is disposed to contact the pair of sidewalls (see annotated Figure 5D above) and the seating surface (see annotated Figure 5D above), respectively (see Figure 5D). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Regarding Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 4):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 4 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the circuit module (protection circuit module, 200) is disposed between the pair of sidewalls (see annotated Figure 5D above) such that the mounting surface (substrate, 210) faces the seating surface (see annotated Figure 5D above) (Figure 5D, [0054]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 4):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 4 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) does not have any rib protruding into the space from the seating surface (see annotated Figure 5D above) (Figure 5D). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
Regarding Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the cell seating part (first region, 300A) and the module seating part (second region, 300B) are configured as partitions within the pack frame (frame, 300) (Figure 2A, [0045]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
Regarding Claim 15 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses a protective cover (upper cover, 400A) mounted on the pack frame (frame, 300) and surrounding the circuit module (protection circuit module, 200) (Figure 1, [0038, 0043]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 15 are met.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2012/0208047 A1), as applied to Claim 4 above, further in view of Ahn (US 2015/0050525 A1).
Regarding Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 4):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 4 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the battery cell (core pack, 100) is electrically connected to the circuit module (protection circuit module, 200) via electrode lead tabs (electrodes, 11) and connection tap (150) (Figure 9, [0057]).
Park is deficient in disclosing that the module seating part has at least one first opening penetrating the seating surface in a thickness direction thereof.
Ahn discloses a battery pack (rechargeable battery pack, 100) comprising a battery cell (unit cell, 10), a circuit module (protection circuit module, 30), and a pack frame (frame, 20) (Figures 1 and 3, [0043]). Ahn further discloses that the pack frame (frame, 20) includes a module seating part (circuit installation portion, 21) comprising a through-hole (211), wherein the circuit module (protection circuit module, 30) is seated in the module seating part (circuit installation portion, 21) (Figure 3, [0060]). Ahn further discloses that the through-hole (211) serves to allow a connection of the electrode lead tabs (16/17) to be connected to the circuit module (protection circuit module, 30) (Figure 3, [0060]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the seating surface of Park to include a through-hole in order to facilitate the connection of the electrode leads to the circuit module, as taught by Ahn. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2012/0208047 A1), as applied to Claim 10 above, further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2017/0365888 A1).
Regarding Claim 11 (Dependent Upon Claim 10):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 10 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing that the cell seating part has at least one second opening penetrating the pack frame.
Kwon discloses a battery pack (secondary battery pack, 1000) comprising a battery cell (secondary battery module, 20), a circuit module (printed circuit board, 330), and a pack frame (second structure, 30) (Figures 2 and 11, [0047, 0090]). Kwon further discloses that the pack frame (second structure, 30) includes a cell seating part (housing, 310) comprising a plurality of through holes (360) (Figure 10, [0091, 0094]). Kwon further discloses that the plurality of through holes (360) serves to help facilitate the insertion of the battery cell (secondary battery module, 20) into the pack frame (second structure, 30) (Figure 10, [0091]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the cell seating part of Park to include a plurality of through holes, as it is known in the art as a useful feature for a cell seating part of a battery pack frame to possess, as taught by Kwon. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing the battery pack a suitable means of facilitating the insertion of the battery cell, as taught by Kwon. Upon the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Regarding Claim 12 (Dependent Upon Claim 11):
Park as modified by Kwon discloses the battery pack of Claim 11 as set forth above. Upon the modifications detailed above in the rejection of Claim 11, the cell seating part of modified Park comprises a plurality of second openings (through holes). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the second openings (through holes) are configured to expose a partial region of the at least one battery cell (core pack, 100) to an outside when the at least one battery cell (core pack, 100) is seated in the cell seating part (first region, 300A).
The examiner notes that the term “an outside” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art. For example. “an outside” may be interpreted as “an outside of the pack frame (frame, 300). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2012/0208047 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0273401 A1).
Regarding Claim 13 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Park further teaches that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) may include an elastic member such that the mounting surface (substrate, 210) may be stably supported by an elastic force of the module support part (elastic portion, 314) (Figure 5D, [0054]).
Park is silent to the material of the elastic member.
Lee discloses a gasket (40) for a secondary battery (100) (Figure 1, [0091]). Lee further discloses that the gasket (40) is formed from a polymer resin, wherein the polymer resin may be a thermoplastic polyester elastomer (TPEE) (Figure 1, [0014, 0028]). Lee further discloses that the gasket (40) is formed from the polymer resin in order to have an electric insulation, impact resistance, and elasticity (Figure 1, [0052]). Lee further discloses that the gasket (40) may be inwardly deformed from an impact, while at the same time supporting a current interrupting device (Figure 1, [0107]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the material of the elastic member of Park, a thermoplastic polyester elastomer, as it is known in the art that such a material is suitable for use as a component of a battery cell which is relied upon to have elasticity and support other battery components in the event of deformation, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 13 are met.
Regarding Claim 14 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. s detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Park further teaches that the module support part (elastic portion, 314) may include an elastic member such that the mounting surface (substrate, 210) may be stably supported by an elastic force of the module support part (elastic portion, 314) (Figure 5D, [0054]).
Park is silent to the material of the elastic member and the shore hardness thereof.
Lee discloses a gasket (40) for a secondary battery (100) (Figure 1, [0091]). Lee further discloses that the gasket (40) is formed from a polymer resin, wherein the polymer resin may be a thermoplastic polyester elastomer (TPEE) (Figure 1, [0014, 0028]). Lee further discloses that the polymer resin has a shore hardness of less than 100D [0055]. Lee further discloses that the gasket (40) is formed from the polymer resin in order to have an electric insulation, impact resistance, and elasticity (Figure 1, [0052]). Lee further discloses that the gasket (40) may be inwardly deformed from an impact, while at the same time supporting a current interrupting device (Figure 1, [0107]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the material of the elastic member of Park, a thermoplastic polyester elastomer, as it is known in the art that such a material is suitable for use as a component of a battery cell which is relied upon to have elasticity and support other battery components in the event of deformation, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Upon the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the module support of modified Park has a shore hardness of less than 100D. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” or are “merely close” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 14 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights