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 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 discloses “each the cell cover”. This appears to be a typographical error and will be interpreted as “each cell cover”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 discloses “a finger of a jig” in line 2. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, is drawn to “a battery pack”. Thus, introducing “a finger of a jig” in claim 9 broadens the scope of “a battery pack” of claim 1. Applicants may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2011/0097614).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses in Figs 1-12, a battery pack (ref 10) comprising: a battery assembly (ref 100) including a plurality of cell units (refs 500); and a pack case (refs 200, 300, 400, [0038]) that houses (Fig 1) the battery assembly (ref 100) in an inner space (Fig 1) thereof, wherein each cell unit (ref 500) includes at least one battery cell (ref 510) and a cell cover (ref 520) that partially covers (Figs 2, 5) the at least one battery cell (ref 510), and wherein each cell cover (ref 520) comprises a first cover part (ref 521c) that covers a first side surface (Fig 5, top) of the at least one battery cell (ref 510), a second cover part (ref 521d) that covers a second side surface (Fig 5, bottom) of the at least one battery cell (ref 510) opposite from (Fig 5) the first side surface (Fig 5, top), a third cover part (ref 540) that connects (Fig 5) a first end (“1st end”, Fig 5 below) of the first cover part (ref 521c) and a first end (“1st end”, Fig 5 below) of the second cover part (ref 521d), and blocking parts (refs 524) that are respectively formed at a second end (“2nd end”, Fig 5 below) of the first cover part (ref 521c) and a second end (“2nd end”, Fig 5 below) of the second cover part (ref 521d), the blocking parts (refs 524) blocking removal ([0073]-[0074]) of the at least one battery cell (ref 510) from the cell cover (ref 520).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the blocking parts (refs 524) of each cell cover (ref 520) comprise a first blocking part (“1st part”, Fig 5 above) at the second end (“2nd end”, Fig 5 above) of the first cover part (ref 521c), and a second blocking part (“2nd part”, Fig 5 above) formed at the second end (“2nd end”, Fig 5 above) of the second cover part (ref 521d), and the first blocking part (“1st part”, Fig 5 above) and the second blocking part (“2nd part”, Fig 5 above) face each other (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first blocking part (“1st part”, Fig 5 above) and the second blocking part (“2nd part”, Fig 5 above) of each cell cover (ref 520) are spaced apart from each other (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least one of the first blocking part (“1st part”, Fig 5 above) and the second blocking part (“2nd part”, Fig 5 above) is arranged in of each cell cover (ref 520) comprises a plurality of blocking portions ([0073]-[0074], multiple disclosed) spaced apart from each other in the a longitudinal direction ([0073]-[0074], Fig 5) of the at least one battery cell (ref 510).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses each blocking part (ref 524) of each cell cover (ref 520) is bent (“bent hook”, Fig 5 above) to the towards an inside (Fig 5) of the cell cover (ref 520) at each the respective second end (“2nd end”, Fig 5 above) of each of the first cover part (ref 521c) and the second cover part (ref 521d) to form a hooking structure (“bent hook”, Fig 5 above).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the cell cover has an integral single-piece shape (depicted in Fig 7, unitary structure).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses in Figs 1-12, a device ([0005]) comprising the battery pack (ref 10) as set forth above.
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 non-obviousness.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2011/0097614) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2018/0047954).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the first cover part and the second cover part of each cell cover are spaced apart from one another in lateral direction in which the at least one battery cell is stacked, nor the third cover part and the blocking part of each cell cover each extend in a longitudinal direction of the at least one battery cell perpendicularly to a lateral direction in which the at least one battery cell is stacked.
Yoo et al. discloses in Figs 1-7, a secondary battery module ([0044]) including a plurality of cell units stacked together (Fig 5). Each cell unit has a cell cover (ref 10) including a first cover part (ref 110), a second cover part (ref 210), and a third cover part (ref 120), and blocking parts (refs 230). The first cover part (ref 110) and the second cover part (ref 210) are spaced apart from one another in a lateral direction (Figs 2-3) and the third cover part (ref 120) and blocking parts (refs 230) extend in a longitudinal direction (Figs 3-5) of the at least one battery cell (Fig 5) perpendicularly to a lateral direction in which the at least one battery cell is stacked (stacking depicted in Fig 5). This configuration enhances the contacting structure and heat transfer abilities within the battery structure ([0028]-[0029]).
Yoo et al. and Kim are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the cover / blocking parts configuration disclosed by Yoo et al. into the structure of Kim to enhance the contacting structure and heat transfer abilities within the battery pack structure, thereby enhancing overall performance.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses each blocking part (refs 524) of each cell cover (ref 520) covers an edge part of one surface (area of ref 510 under the “bent hook”, Fig 5 above) of the at least one battery cell (ref 510), and exposes a central part (middle part between respective refs 524, Fig 5 above, Fig 6 depicts structure assembled together) of the at least one battery cell (ref 510).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2011/0097614) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Won et al. (US 2014/0072853).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose each blocking part of each cell cover comprises an insertion groove into which configured to receive a finger of a jig configured to contact the inner surface of the cell cover and to change an interval between the first cover part and the second cover part of the cell cover is inserted.
Won et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, a battery cell assembly structure ([0007]) including tabs that have grooves therein ([0016]), the grooves connecting to a jig for assembly of the structure ([0016]). This configuration enhances the structural integrity of the overall structure via enhanced assembly techniques ([0016]]-[0017]).
Won et al. and Kim are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the groove structures into the blocking parts (which are essentially tabs in the cover structure) of Kim to enhance structural integrity of the overall structure via enhanced assembly techniques due to the groove structures.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2011/0097614) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (US 2017/0084899).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the cell cover comprises stainless steel (SUS).
Deng et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a battery module (ref 1) comprising a plurality of battery cells (refs 11) housed in a battery case ([0058]). The battery case ([0058]) is formed of stainless steel enhancing strength of the overall battery structure ([0036]).
Deng et al. and Kim are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the cover of Kim as comprising stainless steel as disclosed by Deng et al. to enhance the overall strength and structural integrity of the battery pack.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wu (US 2006/0078786) discloses in Figs 1-7, a battery case 10 that is used for storage of a plurality of cells 11, at a side of the battery case 10 are formed a plurality of inlets 12 and at another side of the batter case 10 opposite the inlets 12 are provided a plurality of outlets 13. The respective cells 11 are separated from each other and from the internal surfaces of the battery case 10 by ventilation spaces 101.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights