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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekar et al. (US 2020/0152927 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sekar discloses a unitary battery pack, the unitary battery pack comprising:
an array of battery cells (Figures 1-3; plurality of cells);
a battery pack enclosure configured to hold the array of battery cells (Figure 1; frame 30), wherein the battery pack enclosure comprises a top surface positioned above the array of battery cells (Figure 1 element 40 reading as the top surface); and
an impact attenuation layer integrated into at least a portion of the top surface of the battery pack enclosure, wherein the impact attenuation layer comprises a first sub-layer and a second sub-layer (Figures 1-3; strike shield comprises a mixed material and are able to withstand ground strikes without damage [0014-0015]; the top surface can be read as the bottom of Figure 1 as the battery cell can be flipped).
Sekar discloses a strike shield 20 that can be a multilayer such as a top layer 120, a middle core layer 110 and a bottom layer 100 ([0015]), wherein the top layer is a composite layer such as a carbon fixer in an epoxy matrix ([0016]), a middle core layer 110 having a metal material such as aluminum, and a bottom layer having a steel layer ([0017] claim 9). Sekar discloses herein the strike shield provides structural support to withstand ground strikes without damage of the batteries.
While Sekar is explicitly silent wherein the first sub-layer having a first puncture resistance attribute and a first impact resistance attribute and the second sub-layer having a second puncture resistance attribute and a second impact resistance attribute, and wherein the first puncture resistance attribute is higher than the second puncture resistance attribute and the first impact resistance attribute is lower than the second impact resistance attribute, Sekar’s materials for the strike shield wherein the steel layer of the bottom layer would read on the first sub layer and the top layer made of an epoxy resin with carbon and aramid plies would read as the second impact resistance layer. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious as the steel layer would have a higher puncture resistance attribute than the epoxy layer of the top layer while each layer has puncture and impact resistance attributed to protect the battery cell. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 2, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein the battery pack enclosure forms a portion of a floorboard of an electric vehicle (Figure 4 strike field is attached to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein the battery pack enclosure is bonded to at least a structure of an electric vehicle (Abstract- an electric vehicle battery pack having a strike shield fixed to the bottom and wherein the battery pack is provided and at least fixed to the vehicle Figure 4; [0003-0004,0024]). Examiner notes that the battery would be bonded/fixed to the vehicle to prevent movement of the battery pack within the vehicle and thus would have been obvious that the battery pack is adhered/bonded to the electric vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein the second sub layer has a thickness and wherein the thickness of the second sub layer corresponds to an acoustic dampening attribute ([0016] top layer 120 can have a thickness between 1-3 mm; [0021] and the strike shield can aid in preventing vibration and for dampening and thus can the epoxy of the top layer can be used for dampening or to provide a dampening effect).
Regarding claim 5, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein the first sub layer of the impact attenuation layer is made of at least one of steel, aluminum alloy or metallic material ([0008] bottom layer can be made of steel).
Regarding claim 6, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein the second sub layer of the impact attenuation layer is made of at least one or polypropylene, epoxy, polyurethane, plastic or foam ([0016] top later 120 can be made of epoxy).
Regarding claim 7, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein the first sub layer of the impact attenuation layer has a thickness between 0.5-3 mm ([0017] bottom layer having a thickness of 0.4-0.8 mm and thus overlaps with that of the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein at least one of a thickness of the first sub-layer or a thickness of the second sublayer is non-uniform (Figure 3; top layer 320 has different thickness provided when the dampening feature 230 is provided and thus reads on non-uniform).
Regarding claim 10, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein the battery pack enclosure further comprises a bottom surface below the array of battery cells, and wherein the bottom surface comprises a compressible material that deforms in response to a physical force (Figure 3; feature 230; [0021] the feature can be compressed to enforce the dampening effect as it is made of a compressible material).
Regarding claim 11, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar further discloses wherein the first sub layer and the second sub layer are bonded with each other ([0014-0015] the shield member is adhesively connected to each other or welded together and thus the adhesive layers are used to bond the first and second sublayers).
Regarding claim 12, Sekar discloses a battery pack, the battery pack comprising:
an array of battery cells (Figures 1-3; plurality of cells);
a battery pack enclosure configured to hold the array of battery cells (Figure 1; frame 30), wherein the battery pack enclosure comprising a bottom surface positioned below the array of battery cells (Figure 1 and Figure 3; the bottom strike shield can be applied to a bottom of the housing); and
a top surface positioned above the array of battery cells (Figure 1 element 40 reading as the top surface); and
an impact attenuation layer integrated into at least a portion of the top surface of the battery pack enclosure, wherein the impact attenuation layer comprises a first sub-layer and a second sub-layer, wherein the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are bonded to each other (Figures 1-3; strike shield comprises a mixed material and are able to withstand ground strikes without damage and the layers are bonded to each other [0014-0015]; the top surface can be read as the bottom of Figure 1 as the battery cell can be flipped).
Sekar discloses a strike shield 20 that can be a multilayer such as a top layer 120, a middle core layer 110 and a bottom layer 100 ([0015]), wherein the top layer is a composite layer such as a carbon fixer in an epoxy matrix ([0016]), a middle core layer 110 having a metal material such as aluminum, and a bottom layer having a steel layer ([0017] claim 9). Sekar discloses herein the strike shield provides structural support to withstand ground strikes without damage of the batteries.
While Sekar is explicitly silent wherein the first sub-layer having a first puncture resistance attribute and a first impact resistance attribute and the second sub-layer having a second puncture resistance attribute and a second impact resistance attribute, and wherein the first puncture resistance attribute is higher than the second puncture resistance attribute and the first impact resistance attribute is lower than the second impact resistance attribute, Sekar’s materials for the strike shield wherein the steel layer of the bottom layer would read on the first sub layer and the top layer made of an epoxy resin with carbon and aramid plies would read as the second impact resistance layer. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 12 are rendered obvious as the steel layer would have a higher puncture resistance attribute than the epoxy layer of the top layer while each layer has puncture and impact resistance attributed to protect the battery cell. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 13, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 12. Sekar further discloses wherein the bottom surface forms at least one structure that separates one battery cell of the array of battery cells from another battery cell of the array of battery cells (Figures 1-4 battery cells are divided by a divider located between adjacent cells and between the top and bottom regions of the housing).
Regarding claim 14, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 12. Sekar further discloses wherein a thickness of the first sub layer is uniform and a thickness of the second sub layer is uniform (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 12. Sekar further discloses wherein at least one of a thickness of the first sub layer or a thickness of the second sub layer is non-uniform (Figure 3; the thickness appears to be able to have a uniform or non-uniform thickness).
Regarding claim 16, Sekar discloses an impact attenuation layer configured to attenuate impact to an array of battery cells enclosed by a battery pack enclosure (Figure 1; strike shield 20, frame 30), wherein the impact attenuation layer is integrated into at least a portion of a top surface of the battery pack enclosure (Figures 1-3; strike shield comprises a mixed material and are able to withstand ground strikes without damage and the layers are bonded to each other [0014-0015]; the top surface can be read as the bottom of Figure 1 as the battery cell can be flipped), the impact attenuation layer comprising:
a first sub-layer and a second sub-layer, wherein the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer are bonded to each other (Figures 1-3; strike shield comprises a mixed material and are able to withstand ground strikes without damage and the layers are bonded to each other [0014-0015];).
Sekar discloses a strike shield 20 that can be a multilayer such as a top layer 120, a middle core layer 110 and a bottom layer 100 ([0015]), wherein the top layer is a composite layer such as a carbon fixer in an epoxy matrix ([0016]), a middle core layer 110 having a metal material such as aluminum, and a bottom layer having a steel layer ([0017] claim 9). Sekar discloses herein the strike shield provides structural support to withstand ground strikes without damage of the batteries.
While Sekar is explicitly silent wherein the first sub-layer having a first puncture resistance attribute and a first impact resistance attribute and the second sub-layer having a second puncture resistance attribute and a second impact resistance attribute, and wherein the first puncture resistance attribute is higher than the second puncture resistance attribute and the first impact resistance attribute is lower than the second impact resistance attribute, Sekar’s materials for the strike shield wherein the steel layer of the bottom layer would read on the first sub layer and the top layer made of an epoxy resin with carbon and aramid plies would read as the second impact resistance layer. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 16 are rendered obvious as the steel layer would have a higher puncture resistance attribute than the epoxy layer of the top layer while each layer has puncture and impact resistance attributed to protect the battery cell. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 17, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16. Sekar further discloses wherein the first sub layer of the impact attenuation layer is made of at least one of steel, aluminum alloy or metallic material ([0008] bottom layer can be made of steel), and wherein the second sub layer of the impact attenuation layer is made of at least one or polypropylene, epoxy, polyurethane, plastic or foam ([0016] top later 120 can be made of epoxy).
Regarding claim 18, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16. Sekar further discloses wherein the second sub layer provides an acoustic dampening attribute for an electric vehicle ([0016] top layer 120 can have a thickness between 1-3 mm; [0021] and the strike shield can aid in preventing vibration and for dampening and thus the epoxy of the top layer can be used for dampening or to provide a dampening effect for a vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16. Sekar further discloses wherein a thickness of the first sub layer is uniform and a thickness of the second sub layer is uniform (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16. Sekar further discloses wherein at least one of a thickness of the first sub layer or a thickness of the second sub layer is non-uniform (Figure 3; the thickness appears to be able to have a uniform or non-uniform thickness).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekar et al. (US 2020/0152927 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doi (JP 2021002420 A).
Regarding claim 8, Sekar discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sekar discloses wherein the top layer can have a thickness between 1-3 mm ([0007]) and thus is silent with respect to a thickness being between 4-15 mm.
Doi discloses a battery cell housing having a bottom plate made of a polyurethane material and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery packs. Doi discloses wherein the polyurethane layer 22B can have a thickness between 3-50 mm in order to reduce the influence of heat on peripheral members and heat insulation within the battery ([0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the epoxy layer of Sekar to have a thickness between 3-50 mm to provide heat insulation within the battery as taught by Doi. The resulting modification would render obvious wherein the second sub layer has a thickness between 4-15 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ahn (US 2013/0045406 A1)- discloses a secondary battery having a finishing member 200 attached to the electrode assembly that functions as a safety device to reduce a possible danger of combustion, breakage, explosion due to penetration ([0035]).
Yamamoto et al. (US 2010/0310911 A1)-discloses a battery pack designed for automobile usages that has good damping and impact resistance properties and at lower costs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights