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 § 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 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2011/0287286 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 10, Ahn teaches secondary devices for use in electronic equipment such as cars (Paragraph [0004]) which are well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to necessitate a plurality of uniform battery assemblies in a module, using secondary batteries wherein each includes a case configured to accommodate an electrode assembly, a safety vent on a first side of the case, and a film unit covering at least a part of the safety vent, the first film unit including a break unit and a second film unit extending from the first film unit, the second film unit being adhered to the case (Paragraph [0010]) wherein the first and second film units of Ahn are analogous to the first and second insulating cover sections of the instant application, and the break unit of Ahn is analogous to the notch of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 3, Ahn teaches a break unit may be formed on an edge of or on an inner part of the first film unit (Paragraph [0060]) so that a part of the first film unit may be easily separated from the second film unit or the safety vent (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ahn teaches the secondary battery includes two electrode terminals, i.e., the positive and negative electrode terminals (Paragraph [0047]). Ahn also teaches the second section of the film unit to comprise an opening through which the terminals may pass to be exposed (Fig. 1: Items h1 and h2).
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, Ahn teaches the secondary battery includes two electrode terminals, i.e., the positive and negative electrode terminals (Paragraph [0047]) and the safety vent is disposed between the first and second terminals (Fig. 1: Items 21, 22, and 30a). Ahn teaches the first section of the film unit to cover at least a part of the safety vent (Paragraph [0010]; Fig. 1: Item 90a) and the second section of the film unit is adhered to the case and covers the sides of the first and second terminals (Paragraph [0010]; Fig. 1: Item 90b).
Ahn teaches the second film unit to be the remainder of the film that is not designated as the first film unit covering the safety vent. Ahn does not teach the film unit to be further divided into sections referred to such that a second section is at a side of the first terminal and a third section is at a side of the second terminal. However, the structure of the final product remains unaffected by how the product is partitioned, as these subdivisions are conceptual labels and division of the products into sections carries no patentable weight as they serve merely as organizational identifiers rather than structural or functional limitations.
Regarding Claim 6, Ahn teaches the first film unit may be connected to the second film unit through a connecting side (Paragraph [0064]) as the first and second film units may be integral with each other (Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ahn teaches the break unit may be formed along an edge of or inside of the first film unit so that a part of the first film unit may be easily separated from the second film unit or the safety vent, and the break unit may include three cutting-plane lines of the first film unit separated from the second film unit (Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ahn teaches an irregular cutting-plane line may be formed inside the first film unit which may divide the first film unit into two separate parts such that gas may easily be discharged from the safety vent through the irregular cutting-plane line, i.e., between the two parts of the first film unit (Paragraph [0069]; Fig. 6B; Fig. 8A).
Regarding Claims 13-15, Ahn does not teach an insulating cover configuration comprising a first and second part, which each continuously cover the terminals of one end and alternately cover the safety vents, to have notches between a section on the safety vent and a terminal of a battery cell and between a section on the safety vent and an opposite terminal of an adjacent battery cell.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the film units of Ahn as integrated parts and/or functionalities to arrive at the claimed configuration of an insulating cover comprising a first and second part which each continuously cover the terminals of one end and alternately cover the safety vents since the court held that "the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP §2144.04(V). In the instant case, an integrated film unit as claimed does not result in a structural difference or expected functional difference from the prior art assembly as taught by Ahn. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The configurations as taught by Ahn, with the three cutting-plane lines to enable the first film unit to easily extend away from the second film unit and the case along the break unit when gas is discharged through the safety vent (Paragraph [0062]), would be expected to perform the same in integrated combination of multiple unit parts as the claimed configuration according to the present disclosure.
Regarding Claims 16-18, Ahn does not teach a connection part configured to connect two adjacent insulating covers to each other wherein the connection part is disposed integrally at a lateral side of the insulating cover.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the film units of Ahn as integrated parts and/or functionalities to arrive at the claimed configuration of adjacent insulating covers connected by integral connection parts at a lateral side since the court held that "the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP §2144.04(V). In the instant case, an integrated film unit as claimed does not result in a structural difference or expected functional difference from the prior art assembly as taught by Ahn. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The configurations as taught by Ahn, with the three cutting-plane lines to enable the first film unit to easily extend away from the second film unit and the case along the break unit when gas is discharged through the safety vent (Paragraph [0062]), would be expected to perform the same in integrated combination of multiple unit parts as the claimed configuration according to the present disclosure.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Ahn teaches the secondary batteries for use in electronic equipment such as cars (Paragraph [0004]) which are well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to necessitate a plurality of uniform battery cell module assemblies in a housing configured to accommodate the battery module in the vehicle.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2011/0287286 A1), further in view of Shimada et al. (WO 2023/007790 A1, US 2024/0339698 A1 relied upon for translation and citations).
Regarding Claim 11, Ahn does not teach an insulating sheet disposed between two adjacent battery cells. Shimada teaches an insulation sheet interposed between adjacent battery cells (Paragraph [0216]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the insulation sheet between adjacent battery cells as taught by Shimada with the battery cell assembly as taught by Ahn in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as preventing the propagation of heat between battery cells as taught by Shimada (Paragraph [0218]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 12, Ahn does not teach an insulating sheet protruding higher than the insulating cover. Shimada teaches the insulating sheets to protrude well above the top surface of the battery cells (Fig. 6: Item 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shimada and Ahn to optimize the protruding height of the insulating sheet to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the dimensions of the insulation sheet by the desire to prevent the propagation of heat between battery cells as taught by Shimada (Paragraph [0218]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights