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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kato (US20220320664A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kato recites a battery module, comprised of a plurality of battery cells (paragraph [0037]), that are made up of electrode bodies covered in an exterior laminate film (paragraph [0021]), housed in a casing (paragraph [0046]). This casing has a pair of short wall portions that extend along the lamination direction of the battery cells (Figure 1, element 112, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]) and a pair of long side wall portions that connect the short side walls (Figure 1, elements 111, 121, paragraphs [0049]-[0050]) that designed to suppress deformation of the battery module when vibrations are transmitted into it (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 2, Kato teaches all the elements of the battery module of claim 1 and teaches that the short wall portions are a linear shape (Figure 1, element 112, paragraphs [0047], [0051]) and the long wall portions are shaped to give their center portions are convex inward in the longitudinal direction due to the recesses present in the long wall (Figure 1, elements 111a, 121a, paragraphs [0049]- [0050], paragraphs [0055]- [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches the elements of the battery module in claim 2 and describes that the more “sandwiched” by the convex portions of the long walls of the battery module is in an initial state or an unloaded state, the greater the resistance against vibrations, and thus deformation, and the better transport of gas formation during charging. Meaning, for optimal results, the convex portions of the long wall would be touching the electrode stack (paragraph [0056]). It is also shown in Figure 1 that the convex portions 111a and 121a are touching the electrode stacks.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US20220320664A1) in view of Hara (US20220294021A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kato teaches the elements of battery module of claim 1 but fails to teach that central convex portions of the long wall are thicker than the other portions.
Hara teaches a secondary battery comprised of a battery case made of a pair of short side walls and a pair of long side walls that houses a plurality of wound electrode bodies (paragraph [0066], Figure 6, element 200). That housing also has a protruding member coming out of the center of the long side wall and directly comes in contact with the electrode body (paragraph [0066], Figure 6, element 13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings Kato with Hara to obtain a battery case wherein the long side wall portions are formed such that center portions in the longitudinal direction thereof are thicker than other portion as “with such a configuration, the heat transfer efficiency to the central region of each electrode body 20 can be selectively increased”, thus improving the resistance against thermal expansion (paragraph [0066]).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US20220320664A1) in view of Cho (US20230038489A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kato teaches the battery module of claim 1 but fails to teach the change in thickness at the connection portions of the long side wall portions and the short side wall portions.
Cho teaches a battery pack meant to house a plurality of battery cells where the place where the short side walls meet the long side wall form a corner that is thicker than the walls (Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings Kato with Cho to obtain a battery case with corners that are thicker where the short side wall and long side walls meet than other portions of the side walls in order to protect the battery cells from external impact (paragraph [0056]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Voigt (DE102020107303A1) teaches a housing for a battery cell, where the housing has a central portion in the side wall that is concave inwardly.
Nusier (US20160233464A1) teaches a battery case enclosed in elongated shock absorbing ribs.
Toshiki (JP2016126872A) teaches a battery jar end of a control valve type storage battery having a thick wall portion having a central part projecting farther inward of the battery jar than both sides.
Jeong (US20210265685A1) teaches a battery module with a frame member having curved surface parts covering both side surfaces of a battery cell stack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Jacob Williams whose telephone number is (571)270-7712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 4 pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)272-1307. 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.
/M.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights