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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recites the limitation "the battery cell" (singular) and only previously recites “a plurality of battery cells” (plural). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the battery cell” limitation in the claim. Examiner suggest amending “the battery cell” to recite “the plurality of battery cells”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the central portion” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner suggest amending the limitation to recite “a central portion”
Claim 2 and 9 recite the limitations “the upper end of the cell frame” and “the upper end of the firewall part”, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Examiner suggest amending the limitations to recite “an upper end…”.
Claim 2 and 9 recite the limitations “the lower end of the cell frame” and “the lower end of the firewall part”, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Examiner suggest amending the limitations to recite “a lower end…”.
Claim 4 and 5 recites the limitations “the upper space” and “the lower space”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Examiner suggest amending the limitations to recite “an upper space” and “a lower space”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the inner surface of the cell insertion space”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner suggest amending the limitations to recite “an inner surface of the cell insertion space”.
Claim 12 sides “the side surfaces of the battery cells”. It is unclear to which “side surfaces” of the battery cells the limitation is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the open top” and “the open bottom”, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Examiner suggest amending the limitations to recite “an open top” and “an open bottom”.
Claim 2-15 are also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
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 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0132629) in view of Verhaag et al. (US 2015/0325826).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a battery pack (i.e. a battery module) comprising a plurality of batteries (Para. [0039]) (i.e. a plurality of battery cells), a first and second holder (Fig. 1, #20, #30) that accommodates the batteries (i.e. a cell frame with a cell insertion space into which the respective battery cells are inserted) and first and second pins (Fig. 1, #23 and #33) (i.e. a support rib diving the cell insertion space and supporting the respective battery cells) and the first and second holders (i.e. the cell frame) are provided so that its thickness becomes thicker at least in part toward the central portion of the cell frame along the insertion direction of battery cell (see Fig. 6, #23 and #33 of the holder wherein the cell frame is thicker toward the central portion of the cell frame along the insertion direction of the battery cell).
Lee does not teach a firewall part in the cell insertion space and provided to surround the respective battery cells.
However, Verhaag et al. teaches battery cells surrounded by fasteners made from intumescent material (Fig. 5, #220 and Para. [0076]) (i.e. provided in the cell insertion space and provided to surround the respective battery cells).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teaching of the intumescent material (i.e. firewall part) as taught by Verhaag et al., as such a structure would protect the substrate (i.e. the cell) from overheating and prevent the spreading of a fire (Para. [0027], [0029], [0051]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Lee further teaches a first and second holder are provided so that the first and second pins (Fig. 6, #23 and #33) have a thickness that becomes thicker as it goes from the upper end of the cell frame to the central portion of the cell frame and is provided so that the thickness becomes narrower as it goes from the central portion to the lower end of the cell frame, along the insertion direction of the battery cell (see Fig. 6, wherein the thickness is greater at the first and second pins compared to the upper and lower ends of the cell).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Lee further teaches first and second pins (Fig. 1, #23 and #33) divides the first cavity (Fig. 6, #26) and the second cavity (Fig. 6, #36) (i.e. in the cell frame, the cell insertion space is divided up and down by the support rib, and the upper space of the cell insertion space, which is the top of the support rib, and the lower space of the cell insertion space, which is the bottom of the support rib, are connected to each other ) wherein the first and second cavity may be structurally and fluidically connected when combined (see Fig. 6 and Para. [0078]) (i.e. are connected to each other to enable fluid movement).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Lee further teaches the first cavity (Fig. 6, #26) and the second cavity (Fig. 6, #36) (i.e. the cell frame has a shape that the upper space and the lower space) are symmetrical to each other based on the first and second pins (Fig. 6, #23 and #33).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Lee does not teach a firewall part comprising a potting resin, in which it is injected into the cell insertion space and cured to be in a state surrounding the respective battery cells.
However, Verhaag et al. teaches battery cells surrounded by fasteners made from intumescent material (Fig. 5, #220) (i.e. firewall part) surrounding the battery cells (Para. [0076]) (i.e. surrounding the respective battery cells) comprising polyurethane (Para. [0033]) (i.e. comprises a potting resin).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teaching of the intumescent material made of polyurethane as taught by Verhaag et al., as such a structure would protect the substrate (i.e. the cell) from overheating and prevent the spreading of a fire (Para. [0027], [0029], [0051]).
The limitation “is injected into the cell insertion space and cured” is a product-by-process limitation which does not limit the claim. Product by process limitations do not impart structural features to the claim and thus as long as the structure is the same as that claimed, the claimed structure is met.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Lee does not teach the potting resin injected into the entire region of the cell insertion space.
However, Verhaag et al. teaches battery cells surrounded by fasteners made from intumescent material (Fig. 5, #220) (i.e. firewall part) surrounding the round battery cells (Para. [0076]) (i.e. in the entire region of the cell insertion space) comprising polyurethane (Para. [0033]) (i.e. the potting resin).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teaching of the intumescent material made of polyurethane as taught by Verhaag et al., as such a structure would protect the substrate (i.e. the cell) from overheating and prevent the spreading of a fire (Para. [0027], [0029], [0051]).
Regarding the limitation “injected”, the limitation is a product-by-process limitation which does not limit the claim. Product by process limitations do not impart structural features to the claim and thus as long as the structure is the same as that claimed, the claimed structure is met.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6 as explained above.
Lee does not teach the potting resin comprises any one of a silicone-based resin, a urethane-based resin or an epoxy-based resin,
However, Verhaag et al. teaches battery cells surrounded by fasteners made from intumescent material (Fig. 5, #220) comprising polyurethane (Para. [0033]) (i.e. the potting resin comprises a urethane-based resin).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teaching of the intumescent material made of polyurethane as taught by Verhaag et al., as such a structure would protect the substrate (i.e. the cell) from overheating and prevent the spreading of a fire (Para. [0027], [0029], [0051]).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Lee does not teach the firewall part contacts the inner surface of the cell insertion space and the outer peripheral surface of each battery cell, respectively, and is disposed to divide adjacent battery cells.
However, Verhaag et al. teaches battery cells surrounded by fasteners made from intumescent material (Fig. 5, #220) (i.e. the firewall part contacts the inner surface of the cell insertion space and the outer peripheral surface of each battery cell, respectively, and is disposed to divide adjacent battery cells).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teaching of the intumescent material surrounding the battery cells (i.e. the firewall part contacts the inner surface of the cell insertion space and the outer peripheral surface of each battery cell, respectively, and is disposed to divide adjacent battery cells) as taught by Verhaag et al., as such a structure would protect the substrate (i.e. the cell) from overheating and prevent the spreading of a fire (Para. [0027], [0029], [0051]).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Lee further teaches first hollows (Fig. 1, #21) and second hollows (Fig. 1, #31) wherein the batteries may be accommodated (Para. [0041-0042]) (i.e. the support rib has a plurality of rib holes into which the respective battery cells are inserted).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Lee further teaches the first cell holder and second cell holder (Fig. 1, #20 and 30) are integrally formed with first and second pins (Fig. 1, #23 and #33) and the first and second hollows (Fig. 1, #21 and #31) (i.e. the support rib is formed integrally with the cell frame).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Lee further teaches the first and second pins (Fig. 1, #23 and #33) are disposed to be spaced apart along the peripheries of the first and second hollows (Fig. 1, #21 and #31) wherein the batteries may be accommodated (Para. [0041-0042]) (i.e. the support rib is disposed to be spaced apart along the peripheries of rib holes, and comprises a plurality of support protrusions [as the pins are protrusions] provided to support the side surface of the battery cells inserted into the rib holes).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12 as explained above.
Lee further teaches the first and second pins (Fig. 1, #23 and #33) which protrude from the top of the support rib and the bottom of the support rib (see also Fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Lee further teaches the first and second pins (Fig. 3 and 4, #23 and #33) (i.e. a support pillar passing through the support rib up and down, disposed in parallel with the battery cell, and coupled to the support rib).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14 as explained above.
Lee et all. Further teaches first and second conductive plates (Fig. 1, #41 and #42) disposed at location corresponding to the upper and lower surfaces of batteries (Para. [0049]) (i.e. an upper cover mounted on the top of the support pillar and coupled of the cell frame to cover the open top of the cell frame, and a lower cover mounted on the bottom of the support pillar and coupled to the cell frame to cover the open bottom of the cell frame).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2015/0132629) in view of Verhaag et al. (US 2015/0325826) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2022/0037715).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee as modified by Verhaag et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Lee does not teach the firewall part provided so that the width between the inner surface of the cell frame and the battery cell closest to cell frame becomes narrower as it goes from the upper end of the firewall part to the central portion along the insertion direction of the battery cell, and is provided so that it becomes wider as it goes from the central portion of the firewall part to the lower end of the firewall part.
However, Kim teaches a fireproof layer (Fig. 8, #31) (i.e. firewall part) thickness gradually decreasing from an outer portion of a region in contact with the main chamber of the battery cell toward the central portion (Para. [0108]) (i.e. the firewall part provided so that the width between the inner surface of the cell frame and the battery cell closest to cell frame becomes narrower as it goes from the upper end of the firewall part to the central portion along the insertion direction of the battery cell, and is provided so that it becomes wider as it goes from the central portion of the firewall part to the lower end of the firewall part).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of modified Lee to incorporate the teaching of the fireproof layer thickness as taught by Kim, as the outer portion of the cell in which a flame occurs more frequently may be formed to be more firm, preventing loss due to the frame (Para. [0110]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights