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
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0028105 issued to Kumar.
Regarding Claim 1, Kumar teaches that cells for use in a power battery pack, the cell comprising a cell body having a length L, a width H, a thickness D, and a volume V—see paragraphs [0056 through 0058] where a cell is disclosed with a length (between 75 and 750 mm; Kumar refers to the length as a “height”); a width (between 50 and 500 mm) and a thickness (between 7 and 17mm); the volume is an inherent property of the length, width and thickness.
wherein the length L can be selected from the range (75 to 750 mm) to be greater than the width range H (50 to 500mm) and the width H can be selected from the range (50 to 500mm) to be greater than the thickness D range (7 to 17mm); and
The dimensional range taught by Kumar is capable of meeting the limitation of the cell body where: 600mm ≤ L ≤ 2500mm and 0.0000065 mm-2 ≤ D/V ≤ 0.00002mm-2. For example a length of 700mm and width of 150mm and a thickness of 10mm results in a D/V of 0.0000095 mm-2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a range a length of 700mm and width of 150mm and a thickness of 10mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclose in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 2-11, Kumar does not explicitly disclose –
in re claim 2 a ratio of the length L and the thickness D meets: 23 ≤ L/D ≤ 208;
in re claim 3 a ratio of the length L and the volume V meets: 0.0005 mm-2 ≤ L/V ≤ 0.002 mm-2;
in re claim 4 a ratio of the width H and the volume V meets: 0.0001 mm-2 ≤ H/V ≤ 0.00015 mm-2;
in re claim 5 where the cell body has a total outer surface area S and a ratio of the length L and the total outer surface area S meets: 0.002 mm-1 ≤ L/S ≤ 0.005 mm-1;
in re claim 6 where the cell body has a total outer surface areas S and a ratio of the total outer surface area S and the volume V meets: 0.1 mm-1 S/V ≤ 0.35 mm-1;
in re claim 7 where the cell body has a total outer surface area S and an energy E and a ratio of the total outer surface area S and the energy E meets: S/E ≤ 1000 mm2Wh;
in re claim 8 where the cell body has an energy E and a ratio of the volume V and the energy E meets: V/E ≤ 2000mm3 Wh-1;
in re claim 9 where a ratio of the length and the width H meets: 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 21;
in re claim 10 where a ratio of the length L and the width H meets: 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 20;
in re claim 11 where a ratio of the length L and the width H meets: 9 ≤ L/H ≤ 13;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include in re claim 2 a ratio of the length L and the thickness D meets: 23 ≤ L/D ≤ 208; in re claim 3 a ratio of the length L and the volume V meets: 0.0005 mm-2 ≤ L/V ≤ 0.002 mm-2; in re claim 4 a ratio of the width H and the volume V meets: 0.0001 mm-2 ≤ H/V ≤ 0.00015 mm-2; in re claim 5 where the cell body has a total outer surface area S and a ratio of the length L and the total outer surface area S meets: 0.002 mm-1 ≤ L/S ≤ 0.005 mm-1; in re claim 6 where the cell body has a total outer surface areas S and a ratio of the total outer surface area S and the volume V meets: 0.1 mm-1 S/V ≤ 0.35 mm-1; in re claim 7 where the cell body has a total outer surface area S and an energy E and a ratio of the total outer surface area S and the energy E meets: S/E ≤ 1000 mm2Wh; in re claim 8 where the cell body has an energy E and a ratio of the volume V and the energy E meets: V/E ≤ 2000mm3 Wh-1; in re claim 9 where a ratio of the length and the width H meets: 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 21; in re claim 10 where a ratio of the length L and the width H meets: 4 ≤ L/H ≤ 20; in re claim 11 where a ratio of the length L and the width H meets: 9 ≤ L/H ≤ 13; since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discover the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14, Kumar teaches a power battery pack (100) configured to provide power to an electric vehicle, the power battery pack (100) comprising: a pack body (100); and a plurality of cells (102, 104) arranged in the pack body to form a cell array (see Figure 1). Kumar does not explicitly state that the cells are the cells disclosed in paragraphs [0056 through 0058]. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the disclosed cell for the cell arrays (102, 104) as an obvious engineering expedient for using a known cell.
Regarding Claim 15, Kumar discloses an electric vehicle (see at least paragraph [0027]), which inherently has a chassis for supporting the power battery pack (100).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0028105 issued to Kumar in view of U.S. Patent No. Publication No. 2021/0104798 issued to Jiang et al.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Kumar is silent if at least one explosion-proof valve; and wherein the cell body comprises an housing, the cell body has a first end and a second end opposite the first end in a length direction of the cell body, and the at least one explosion-proof valve is disposed on at least one of the first and second ends of the cell body.
Jiang et al. teach of a battery module that includes first (211) and second (211) explosion-proof valves (V) arranged on opposite ends of a battery module (see Figure 5) where the valves (211) are configured to discharge gas to different locations (see first path P1 and second path P2; Figure 7 and paragraph [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide first and second explosion proof valves, as taught by Jiang et al, for the battery cell taught by Kumar. One would be motivated to provide first and second explosion proof valves to increase the safety of the vehicle by allowing gases to be vented from the batteries to increase the safety of the vehicle.
Kumar as modified by Oguri is silent if the housing (100) for the battery cells is aluminum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use aluminum for the housing as aluminum is lightweight metal that would be suitable to support the battery cells.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0028105 issued to Kumar in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,099,546 issued to Hara et al.
Regarding Claim 16, Kumar discloses a battery pack (100) for an electric vehicle but does not show the location for the battery pack, specifically if power battery pack is disposed at a bottom of the electric vehicle, and the pack body is fixedly connected to the chassis of the electric vehicle.
Hara et al. teach of a battery mounting structure for an electric vehicle, specifically showing power battery pack (16) is disposed at a bottom (see Figures 1 and 4) of the electric vehicle (10), and the pack body (21) is fixedly connected (fixing plates 42) to the chassis (see Figure 4) of the electric vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Hara et al.’s teaching that it is known to fix a battery pack to the chassis on a bottom of an electric vehicle for locating the battery pack of Kumar. One would be motivated to locate the battery pack on the lower portion of the as an obvious location on the lower portion of the vehicle body that would provide a low center of gravity.
Regarding Claim 17, in the invention taught by Kumar as modified by Hara et al. the power battery pack (100 of Kumar) is disposed at a bottom of the electric vehicle, a width of the power battery pack is arranged along a width W of a vehicle body of the electric vehicle, and a length the power battery pack is arranged along a length of the vehicle body of the electric vehicle.
Regarding Claims 18-20, Kumar as modified by Hara et al. does not explicitly disclose –
in re claim 18 the pack body has a width F and a ratio of the width F and the width W of the vehicle body meets: 50% ≤ F/W ≤ 80%.
in re claim 19 the length L of the cell body of each of the plurality of cells is arranged with the width of the power battery pack and a ratio of the length L of the cell body of each of the plurality of cells and the width W of the vehicle body meets: 46% ≤ L/W ≤ 76%;
in re claim 20 the width W of the vehicle body meets: 500 mm ≤ W ≤ 2000 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include in re claim 18 the pack body has a width F and a ratio of the width F and the width W of the vehicle body meets: 50% ≤ F/W ≤ 80%; in re claim 19 the length L of the cell body of each of the plurality of cells is arranged with the width of the power battery pack and a ratio of the length L of the cell body of each of the plurality of cells and the width W of the vehicle body meets: 46% ≤ L/W ≤ 76%; in re claim 20 the width W of the vehicle body meets: 500 mm ≤ W ≤ 2000 mm. since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discover the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN L SWENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9-5).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
BRIAN SWENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/BRIAN L SWENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights