Battery assembly, wing of an aircraft, aircraft, and method for installing a battery assembly

§102 §103 §112

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. Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 recites “at least one first battery module and at least one second battery module…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how each of the first and second battery modules as recited in claim 4 relate to the “at least one battery module” as recited in claim 1? Clarification within claim 4 is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0021943 (Amante et al.). Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 17 and 18, Amante et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a battery assembly configured to be mounted within at least one wing (104) of at least one aircraft, including: at least one battery module (202) which includes at least one battery cell (400); at least one mounting structure (218) configured to mount the battery module (202), along a mounting side (bottom) of the battery module (202), to at least one support structure within the wing (104); wherein the battery assembly is configured to be mounted within the at least one wing (104) such that the battery assembly is mounted to the at least one support structure along the mounting side (bottom) of the battery module (202) and a second side (top) of the battery module (202) is not mounted to a support structure within the wing (104), the second side (top) being substantially opposite from the mounting side (bottom); wherein the battery assembly includes a plurality of the at least one battery module (202), wherein the plurality of battery modules (202) are mountable in series within the wing (104), wherein at least two adjacent battery modules (202) of the plurality of battery modules (202) are mechanically decoupled from each other at least along the second side (top) of the battery modules (202); wherein the battery assembly is configured such that the mounting side (bottom) extends at least one of: substantially perpendicular to a span-wise direction of the wing (104), substantially perpendicular to a front spar, and substantially perpendicular to a rear spar of the wing (104), when the battery assembly is mounted within the wing (104), (Figures 1-6C); Claim 3 - wherein the battery assembly is configured to be arranged within a wingbox of the wing (104 – the examiner notes that the wing does NOT actually appear to claimed), wherein the wingbox is at least partially defined by a front spar, a rear spar, an upper skin and a lower skin of the wing (104), (Figures 1-6C); Claim 4 - wherein the battery assembly comprises at least one first battery module (202) and at least one second battery module (202), wherein the battery assembly is configured such that the at least one first battery module (202) is mountable to one side of the support structure (left or right side of the wing (104)) and the at least one second battery module (202) is mountable to a second side of the support structure (the other of the left or right side of the wing (104)) which is substantially opposite from the first side, (Figures 1-6C); Claim 7 - wherein at least two adjacent battery modules (202) of the plurality of battery modules (202) are mechanically decoupled from each other along each side of the battery modules (202) or, along each side of the battery modules (202) except for the mounting sides, (Figures 1-6C); Claim 8 - at least one encapsulation device (covers of battery cells (400)) configured to at least partially encapsulate the battery cell(s) (400), (Figures 1-6C); Claim 9 - an intermediate thermomechanical cover (covers of battery cells (400)) placed on the atop of the battery module (202), (Figures 1-6C); Claim 17 - wherein the support structure extends parallel to the mounting structure (218) and perpendicular to the span-wise direction, (Figures 1-6C); Claim 18 - wherein the battery assembly is free of a mounting structure (218) for mounting the battery module along the second side (top) of the battery module (202), (Figures 1-6C). Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 12,384,514 (Linde et al.). Regarding Claims 1-4, 7 and 16, Linde et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a battery assembly configured to be mounted within at least one wing (102) of at least one aircraft, including: at least one battery module (5-8) which includes at least one battery cell (5-8); at least one mounting structure (adhesive which is placed between the battery modules (5-8) and the rib (30)) configured to mount the battery module (5-8), along a mounting side (side attached to rib (30)) of the battery module (5-8), to at least one support structure (30) within the wing (102); wherein the battery assembly is configured to be mounted within the at least one wing (102) such that the battery assembly is mounted to the at least one support structure (30) along the mounting side (side attached to rib (30)) of the battery module (5-8) and a second side (side not attached to rib (30)) of the battery module (5-8) is not mounted to a support structure within the wing (102), the second side (side not attached to rib (30)) being substantially opposite from the mounting side (side attached to rib (30)); wherein the battery assembly includes a plurality of the at least one battery module (5-8), wherein the plurality of battery modules (5-8) are mountable in series within the wing (102), wherein at least two adjacent battery modules (5-8) of the plurality of battery modules (5-8) are mechanically decoupled from each other at least along the second side (side not attached to rib (30)) of the battery modules (5-8); wherein the battery assembly is configured such that the mounting side (side attached to rib (30)) extends at least one of: substantially perpendicular to a span-wise direction of the wing (102), substantially perpendicular to a front spar, and substantially perpendicular to a rear spar of the wing (102), when the battery assembly is mounted within the wing (102), (Figures 1-9); Claim 2 – wherein the support structure (30) is a rib (30) arranged within the wing (102), (Figures 1-9); Claim 3 - wherein the battery assembly is configured to be arranged within a wingbox of the wing (102 – the examiner notes that the wing does NOT actually appear to claimed), wherein the wingbox is at least partially defined by a front spar, a rear spar, an upper skin and a lower skin of the wing (102), (Figures 1-9); Claim 4 - wherein the battery assembly comprises at least one first battery module (5/6) and at least one second battery module (7/8), wherein the battery assembly is configured such that the at least one first battery module (5/6) is mountable to one side of the support structure (30) and the at least one second battery module (7/8) is mountable to a second side of the support structure (30) which is substantially opposite from the first side, (Figures 1-9); Claim 7 - wherein at least two adjacent battery modules (5-8) of the plurality of battery modules (5-8) are mechanically decoupled from each other along each side of the battery modules (5-8) or, along each side of the battery modules (5-8) except for the mounting sides, (Figures 1-9); Claim 16 - wherein the support structure (30) is a rib (30) which at least partially defines a wingbox of the wing (102), and wherein the support structure extends parallel to the mounting structure and perpendicular to the wing span direction, (Figures 1-9). Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 12,100,824 (Pitre et al.). Regarding Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 19, Pitre et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a battery assembly (10) “configured to/capable of” being mounted within at least one wing (not claimed) of at least one aircraft (not claimed), including: at least one battery module (10) which includes at least one battery cell (14); at least one mounting structure (140 or 141) configured to mount the battery module (10), along a mounting side (12f) of the battery module (10), to at least one support structure within the wing (there is nothing that notes that these battery modules (10) are not capable of being mounted within a wing of an aircraft); wherein the battery assembly is configured to be mounted within the at least one wing such that the battery assembly is mounted to the at least one support structure along the mounting side (12f) of the battery module (10) and a second side of the battery module (10) is not mounted to a support structure within the wing, the second side being substantially opposite from the mounting side (12f); wherein the battery assembly includes a plurality of the at least one battery module (10), wherein the plurality of battery modules (10) are capable of being mountable in series within the wing, wherein at least two adjacent battery modules (10) of the plurality of battery modules (10) are mechanically decoupled from each other at least along the second side of the battery modules (10); wherein the battery assembly is configured such that the mounting side (12f) extends at least one of: substantially perpendicular to a span-wise direction of the wing, substantially perpendicular to a front spar, and substantially perpendicular to a rear spar of the wing, when the battery assembly is mounted within the wing, (Figures 1-5); Claim 5 – at least one thermal management system (26) configured to at least partially control a temperature of at least a portion of the battery module (10), wherein the thermal management system (26) includes at least one compartment which includes at least one channel (26c) configured to guide at least one working medium therethrough to transfer heat at least one of: to the battery module (10) andClaim 6 - wherein the compartment (26c) is configured to be at least partially integrated in the support structure (10), (Figures 1-5); Claim 8 - at least one encapsulation device (22) configured to at least partially encapsulate the battery cell(s) (14), (Figures 1-5); Claim 11 - a venting device (30), particularly comprising an over-pressure relief valve or a burst valve (30), the venting device (30) being preferably installed within a shell or tub of the battery module (10), (Figures 1-5); Claim 19 - wherein the encapsulation device (22) is at least partially made of at least one foam material (22), (Figures 1-5). 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. 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. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0021943 (Amante et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,305 (Villanueva et al.). Regarding Claim 10, Amante et al. teaches the assembly as described above, but does not teach: wherein the thermomechanical cover is provided with one or more openings located above gaps between battery cells (Claim 10). However, Villanueva et al. teaches: Claim 10 – a battery module (1110) including a thermomechanical cover (AA) provided with one or more openings (BB) located above gaps between battery cells, (Annotated Figure 12 Below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Amante et al. to have wherein the thermomechanical cover is provided with one or more openings located above gaps between battery cells (Claim 10) as taught by Villanueva et al. for the purposes of providing additional ventilation to the thermomechanical cover of Amante et al. PNG media_image1.png 404 416 media_image1.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Additionally, the examiner notes that applicant did not appear to actually present any arguments with regards to the previous use of reference: U.S. Patent No. 12,384,514 (Linde et al.). Therefore, this reference has been once again used in this office action. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642