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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Claims 17-18 are withdrawn. Claims 1-16 were rejected in the office action mailed 10/8/2025. Claims 1-16 are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 1/4/2026, in response to the office action mailed 10/8/2025, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame all objections, and some 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach a plurality of sub-compartments separated by a partition. Examiner disagrees. CN116073046A machine translation (Wu) teaches a plurality of sub-compartments separated by a partition, as illustrated in Figure A below:
Figure A: Annotated Wu Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
456
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although a “partition” can be a wall, a “partition” does not have to be a solid structure, but can be a division into separate regions, portions, parts, or units1,2,3. Wu’s batteries are divided into regions, portions, parts, or units, as illustrated in Figure A above.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach that each battery of the plurality of batteries comprises p * q battery cells (p rows and q columns, p and q are both positive integers). Examiner disagrees. Wu illustrates an integer number of columns and an integer number of rows (figure 3: p = 52 rows and q = 2 columns).
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach that the “plurality of sub-compartments are arranged along a length direction of the casing”. According to the understanding of the Examiner, this is illustrated in Figure A above. It may be, however, that Applicant and Examiner have a different interpretation of “arranged along”. It would help clarify claim interpretation if “arranged along” is replaced by “parallel to” or “perpendicular to”, provided that this is supported by the specification.
Applicant argues that none of the references teach 20 m3 < V < 80 m3. Examiner disagrees. Wu teaches an obvious variant of this range, as discussed in claim 1 below.
Claim Interpretation
Amended claim 1 now states:
“a casing having… a battery compartment… a volume of the battery compartment is V1… and… a volume of the casing is denoted as V”.
Claim 1 doesn’t state any difference between the casing and the battery compartment. For present examination, Examiner presumes that the casing and the battery compartment are the same, and that V1 = V.
If this is not Applicant’s intended interpretation, then Applicant should amend claim 1 to distinguish the casing from the battery compartment, and V1 from V.
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.
Claims 2-5 & 10-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claims 2-5 state the following mathematical relationships:
Claim 2
“0.5 ≤ V2/V ≤ 0.85, 0.0001 ≤ V3/V1 ≤ 0.00025, 0.0035 m3 ≤ V3 ≤ 0.008 m3, 0.45 ≤ V1/V ≤ 0.75”
Claim 3
“0.65 ≤ L1/L ≤ 0.95, 3 m ≤ L ≤ 9 m”
Claim 4
“D2 = D3 * N3, 0.02 ≤ D3/D1 ≤ 0.05, 0.04 m ≤ D3 ≤ 0.12 m”
Claim 5
“H2 = H3 * N4, 0.07 ≤ H3/H1 ≤ 0.12…
“H4 = H5 * N7, 0.2 m ≤ H5 ≤ 0.3 m, 2 ≤ N7 ≤ 10
“0.55 ≤ H1/H ≤ 0.85; 1.5 m ≤ H ≤ 3.5 m”
Due to lack of “and”, “or”, or “and/or”, it is unclear whether all of these relationships are required, or only one. Due to the prior claim set stating “and/or”, for present examination, Examiner presumes that “and/or” is intended; i.e. that one or more relationships are required.
Claim 3 states:
along the length direction, a dimension of the housing of each of the plurality of battery cells is denoted as L3, and N2 battery cells of the plurality of battery cells are arranged in a same row within the battery compartment, satisfying L2 = L3 * N2, 0.03 ≤ L3/L1 ≤ 0.12, and/or 0.17 m ≤ L3 ≤ 0.6 m…
along the length direction, a dimension of each of the plurality of batteries is denoted as L5, and N5 batteries of the plurality of batteries are arranged in a same row within the battery compartment, satisfying L4 = L5 * N5, 1 m ≤ L5 ≤ 1.5 m, and 2 ≤ N5 ≤ 6
It seems that both L3 (dimension of the housing) and L5 (dimension of each of the plurality of batteries) are the same. If they are different, then L5 must be less than L3, because there is no battery dimension larger than the housing. Thus, it is not possible for 0.17 m ≤ L3 ≤ 0.6 m and 1 m ≤ L5 ≤ 1.5 m. The relationships for L5 are not considered for prior art analysis due to the contradiction within the claim.
Claim 5 states:
“along the height direction, a sum of dimensions of the plurality of batteries arranged in a same column within the battery compartment is denoted as H4, satisfying 0.6 ≤ H4/H1 ≤ 0.99”
The column is the width direction, so it is unclear what is meant by summing battery dimensions in a column along the height direction.
Claim 10 states:
“wherein a volume of each battery of the plurality of batteries is denoted as V6, and a sum of volumes of the housings of the p*q battery cells of the battery is denoted as V7, satisfying 0.5 ≤ V7/V6 ≤ 0.8,
“wherein a number of the p*q battery cells of the battery is denoted as N8, and a volume of the housing of each of the p*q battery cells is denoted as V3, satisfying V7 = V3 * N8”
It is unclear how the volume of one battery (V6) can be larger than the combined volume (V7) of a housing exterior of multiple of the same battery.
Claim 11 states:
“in each row of the p*q battery cells of each battery of the plurality of batteries, a sum of dimensions of the housings of the battery cells along the length direction is denoted as L7, and a dimension of the battery along the length direction is denoted as L5, satisfying 0.8 ≤ L7/L5 ≤ 0.95, wherein along the length direction, a dimension of the housing of each of the p*q battery cells is denoted as L3, satisfying 0.17 m ≤ L3 ≤ 0.6 m”
It is unclear how the length of one battery (L5) can be larger than the combined length (L7) of a housing exterior of multiple of the same battery.
Claim 12 states:
“wherein in each column of the p*q battery cells of each battery of the plurality of batteries, a sum of dimensions of the housings of the battery cells along the width direction is denoted as D7, and a dimension of the battery along the width direction is denoted as D5, satisfying 0.75 ≤ D7/D5 ≤ 0.95,
“wherein along the width direction, a dimension of the housing of each of the p*q battery cells is denoted as D3, satisfying 0.04 m ≤ D3 ≤ 0.12 m”
It is unclear how the width of one battery (W5) can be larger than the combined width (W7) of a housing exterior of multiple of the same battery.
Claim 13 states:
“a dimension of the housing of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells along the height direction of the casing is denoted as H3, and a dimension of each battery of the plurality of batteries along the height direction is denoted as H5, satisfying 0.75 ≤ H3/H5 ≤ 0.95,, wherein 0.17 m ≤ H3 ≤ 0.6 m; optionally, 0.2 m ≤ H3 ≤ 0.45 m”
It is unclear how the height of each battery (H5) can be greater than the housing the each battery is enclosed in (H3). There are no drawings illustrating the battery protruding out of the housing.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116073046A machine translation (Wu).
Wu teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
An energy storage device (title & abstract: energy storage unit), wherein the energy storage device comprises:
a casing having a length direction, a width direction, and a height direction, the casing comprising a battery compartment, wherein the battery compartment comprises a plurality of sub-compartments, the plurality of sub-compartments are arranged along a length direction of the casing, the battery compartment is provided with a partition, and two adjacent subcompartments of the plurality of sub-compartments are separated by the partition (Figure A; partition between the two columns of batteries 200);
a plurality of batteries, wherein each of the sub-compartments accommodates at least one battery of the plurality of batteries, and each battery of the plurality of batteries comprises p * q battery cells, the p * q battery cells are arranged in p rows and q columns,
each row of battery cells of the p * q battery cells is arranged along the length direction of the casing, each column of battery cells of the p * q battery cells is arranged along a width direction of the casing, p and q are both positive integers (page 9, lines 28-36; figure 3: about 52 rows & 2-4 columns), the p * q battery cells of each battery of the plurality of batteries together constitute a plurality of battery cells within the battery compartment (Figure A),
Figure A: Annotated Wu Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
456
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu also teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells comprises a housing and electrode terminals, a volume of the housing is denoted as V3, V3 is greater than or equal to 0.0026 m3
(figure 2 illustrates L200, H200, & D200;
page 10, lines 1-2: L200 = 1200 mm = 1.2 m;
page 12, lines 9-11: H200 = 400 mm = 0.4 m;
page 13, line 43 through page 14, line 2: D200 = 150 mm = 0.15 m;
V3 = L200*H200*D200 = 1.2m*0.4m*0.15m = 0.072 m3), and
the electrode terminals are provided on the housing (page 13, lines 5-14; figure 2: housing includes the first surface 201, the second surface 202, and the third surface 203; terminals are the poles 210)…
Claim 1 also recites:
a volume of the casing is denoted as V, satisfying 20 m3 < V < 80 m3
Wu teaches the dimensions L100, H100, & D100 for the casing (figure 1):
N*D200/L100=90%, where N is a number of rows (page 11, lines 37-44). Thus, L100=N*D200/0.9 = 52*0.15m/0.9 = 8.67 m.
H100≥H200 (page 3, lines 41-42) = 0.4 m.
M*L200/D100=90%, where M=4 (page 9, lines 28-36). Thus, D100=M*L200/0.9 = 4*1.2m/0.9 = 5.33 m.
Thus, Wu teaches V = 8.67m*0.4m*5.33m = 18.48 m3, which is close to, but not within, the claimed 20 to 80 m3 range. MPEP 2144.05 (I) provides the law for this issue:
“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)… ‘The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.’”
Given that there is only a slight difference between Wu’s 18.4 m3 and ≥ 20 to 80 m3 in claim 1, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Wu’s range.
Wu also teaches the following claim 1 limitation:
wherein a volume of the battery compartment is V1, a sum of volumes of the housings of all the battery cells in the battery compartment is V2, and 0.4 ≤ V2/V1 ≤ 0.95
With four columns and 52 rows, V = 18.48 m3, as discussed above. V1 = V, as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, so V1 = 18.48 m3. The volume of each battery cell is 0.072 m3, as discussed above. With four columns and 52 rows, V2 = 52*4*0.072 m3 = 14.98 m3. V2/V1 = 14.98 m3/18.48 m3 = 0.81.
With regard to claim 2, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wu also teaches the following claim 2 limitation:
0.5 ≤ V2/V ≤ 0.85 (V2/V1 = V2/V = 0.81, as discussed under claim 1 above), 0.0001 ≤ V3/V1 ≤ 0.00025, 0.0035 m3 ≤ V3 ≤ 0.008 m3, 0.45 ≤ V1/V ≤ 0.75
With regard to claim 3, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wu also teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
along the length direction, a dimension of the battery compartment is denoted as L1 (Page 9, lines 28-36; figure 2: With four columns, D100=M*L200/0.9=4*1.2m/0.9=5.33m=L1), and a sum of dimensions of the housings of the plurality of battery cells arranged in a same row within the battery compartment is denoted as L2 (Page 10, lines 1-2; figure 2: L200=1200mm=1.2m. With four columns, L2=4*1.2m=4.8m), satisfying 0.6 ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 0.95 (4.8m/5.33m=0.90),
Wu also teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
along the length direction, a dimension of the housing of each of the plurality of battery cells is denoted as L3, and N2 battery cells of the plurality of battery cells are arranged in a same row within the battery compartment, satisfying L2 = L3 * N2, 0.03 ≤ L3/L1 ≤ 0.12, and/or 0.17 m ≤ L3 ≤ 0.6 m (page 10, lines 1-2; figure 2: L200 = 500mm = 0.5m = L3);
This 0.5 m is different from the 1.2 m used in claim 1 above for L200. Wu teaches both values. If L200 = 0.5 m is used instead of L200 = 1.2 m, then the volume V, discussed in claim 1 will change. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust the quantity of batteries to meet both the claim 3 “0.17 m ≤ L3 ≤ 0.6 m” limitation and the claim 1 “20 m3 < V < 80 m3” limitation.
Wu also teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
along the length direction, a dimension of the casing is denoted as L, satisfying 0.65 ≤ L1/L ≤ 0.95, 3 m ≤ L ≤ 9 m;
As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, claim 1 doesn’t state any difference between the casing and the battery compartment. Thus, L=L1 and L1=5.33m, as discussed above. 5.33 m is within the claimed 3 m ≤ L ≤ 9 m range.
Wu also teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
along the length direction, a sum of dimensions in a same row of the plurality of batteries arranged within the battery compartment is denoted as L4 (Page 10, lines 1-2; figure 2: L200=1200mm=1.2m. With four columns, L2=4*1.2m=4.8m), satisfying 0.7 ≤ L4/L1 ≤ 0.96; optionally, 0.78 ≤ L4/L1 ≤ 0.91; and
As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section above, for present examination, L4=L2. L4/L1 = 4.8m/5.33m = 0.90.
Claim 3 also states:
along the length direction, a dimension of each of the plurality of batteries is denoted as L5, and N5 batteries of the plurality of batteries are arranged in a same row within the battery compartment, satisfying L4 = L5 * N5, 1 m ≤ L5 ≤ 1.5 m, and 2 ≤ N5 ≤ 6
As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section above, the relationships for L5 are not considered for prior art analysis due to the contradiction within the claim.
With regard to claim 4, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wu also teaches the following claim 4 limitation:
along the width direction, a dimension of the battery compartment is denoted as D1, and a sum of dimensions of the housings of the plurality of battery cells arranged in a same column within the battery compartment is denoted as D2, satisfying 0.6 ≤ D2/D1 ≤ 0.95 (page 11, lines 37-44; page 13, line 43 through page 14, line 2; figure 3; claim 1 discussion above: D1=L100=N*D200/0.9= 52*0.15m/0.9=8.67m; D2=SD200=52*0.15m=7.8m; D2/D1=7.8m/8.67m= 0.9),
along the width direction, a sum of dimensions of the plurality of batteries arranged in a same row within the battery compartment is denoted as D4, satisfying 0.7 ≤ D4/D1 ≤ 0.96 (D4=D2. As discussed above, D2/D1=0.9, so D4/D1=0.9.); optionally, 0.78 ≤ D4/D1 ≤ 0.91…
along the width direction, a dimension of the housing of each of the plurality of battery cells is denoted as D3, and N3 battery cells are arranged within the battery compartment, satisfying D2 = D3 * N3 (page 13, line 43 through page 14, line 2; figure 3: D3=0.15m; D3=52; D2=7.8m=0.15m*52), 0.02 ≤ D3/D1 ≤ 0.05, 0.04 m ≤ D3 ≤ 0.12 m; and
Claim 4 also states:
along the width direction, a dimension of each of the plurality of batteries is denoted as D5, and N6 batteries of the plurality of batteries are arranged in a same row within the battery compartment, satisfying D4 = D5 * N6, 1 m ≤ D5 ≤ 1.5 m, and 2 ≤ N6 ≤ 3;
along the width direction, a dimension of the casing is denoted as D, satisfying 0.65 ≤ D1/D ≤ 0.99, wherein 1.5 m ≤ D ≤ 3.5 m
Wu fails to teach these dimensions; however, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust casing size and/or battery quantity to meet the needs of the application.
With regard to claim 5, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
Claim 5 states:
along the height direction of the casing, a dimension of the battery compartment is denoted as H1, and a sum of dimensions of the housings of the plurality of battery cells arranged in a same column within the battery compartment is denoted as H2, satisfying 0.6 ≤ H2/H1 ≤ 0.95
Wu teaches H100≥H200 (page 3, lines 41-42), where H100 is the casing height and H200 is battery height. Wu doesn’t explicitly teach 0.6≤H100/H200≤0.95. Wu does, however, teach a gap between the casing and battery to allow for expansion, and that the battery dimension can be 90% of the casing dimension. It would be undesirable for the casing to be excessively larger than the battery, because this would result in damaging battery motion and an undesirably-large casing. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for H100/H200 to be 0.6 - 0.95, to allow battery expansion, but also avoid battery motion within the casing and avoid an undesirably-large casing.
Wu teaches the following claim 4 limitations:
along the height direction, a dimension of the housing of each of the plurality battery cells is denoted as H3, and N4 battery cells of the plurality of battery cells are arranged in a same column within the battery compartment, satisfying H2 = H3 * N4, 0.07 ≤ H3/H1 ≤ 0.12 (page 12, lines 9-11; figure 3: N4=1; H3=H200=0.4m; H2=0.4m*1= 0.4 m)…
along the height direction, a dimension of each of the plurality of batteries is denoted as H5, and N7 batteries of the plurality of batteries are arranged within the battery compartment, satisfying H4 = H5 * N7, 0.2 m ≤ H5 ≤ 0.3 m, 2 ≤ N7 ≤ 10 (page 12, lines 9-11; figure 3: N7=N4=1; H5=H3=H200=0.4m; H4=0.4m*1= 0.4 m)
Claim also 5 states:
along the height direction, a sum of dimensions of the plurality of batteries arranged in a same column within the battery compartment is denoted as H4, satisfying 0.6 ≤ H4/H1 ≤ 0.99 (As discussed under the 112(b) rejection above, the meaning of this claim limitation is unclear, so this claim limitation is disregarded for prior art analysis)
Claim also 5 states:
along the height direction, a dimension of the casing is denoted as H, satisfying 0.55 ≤ H1/H ≤ 0.85; 1.5 m ≤ H ≤ 3.5 m
Wu teaches H = 0.4 m (page 3, lines 41-42); however, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust casing size to meet the needs of the application and the number of layers of batteries.
With regard to claim 6, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wu also teaches the following claim 6 limitations:
a volume of the sub-compartment is denoted as V4, and a sum of volumes of the batteries within each sub-compartment of the plurality of sub-compartments is denoted as V5, satisfying 0.75 ≤ V5/V4 ≤ 0.95
As discussed under claim 1, summed battery volume = 14.98 m3 and battery compartment volume is 18.48 m3, so V5=14.98m3/4=3.745m3 and V4=18.48m3/4=4.62m3 (4 sub-compartments). Thus, V5/V4=3.745m3/4.62m3=0.81.
With regard to claim 7, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wu also teaches the following claim 7 limitations:
along the length direction of the casing, each sub-compartment of the plurality of sub-compartments accommodates only one of the batteries (As discussed in the Response to Amendment / Arguments section above, partitioning into different sub-compartments can be by mere designation. A sub-compartment in Wu can be designated with a single battery.), wherein along the length direction, a dimension of the sub-compartment is denoted as L6, and a dimension of each battery of the plurality of batteries is denoted as L5, satisfying 0.85 ≤ L5/L6 ≤ 0.99 (L5/L6 has the same value as L2/L1, which equals 0.90, as discussed in claim 1)
With regard to claim 8, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 8 recites:
along the width direction of the casing, each sub-compartment of the plurality of sub-compartments accommodates only one of the plurality of batteries
As discussed in the Response to Amendment / Arguments section above, partitioning into different sub-compartments can be by mere designation. A sub-compartment in Wu, along the width direction, can be designated with a single battery.
With regard to claim 9, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wu also teaches the following claim 9 limitation:
along the height direction of the casing, the sub-compartment accommodates more than one of the plurality of the batteries (figure 5)
Claim 9 also recites:
the number of the sub-compartments is less than or equal to 4
Wu illustrates seven energy storage units 100 (figure 5). Each energy storage unit 100 includes at least two sub-compartments (Figure A above), and thus at least 7x2=14 sub-compartments. Although Wu teaches more than 4 sub-compartments, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust the number of sub-compartments based on the requirements of the specific application.
With regard to claims 10-13, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. As discussed under the 112(b) rejection above, these claim limitations are indefinite or impossible to achieve, so these claim limitations are disregarded for present prior art analysis.
With regard to claim 14, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wu also teaches the following claim 14 limitations:
wherein each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells further comprises at least one electrode assembly, and the electrode assembly is accommodated within the housing (page 13, lines 21-23);
the housing is a right parallelepiped in shape (figure 2), a dimension of the housing in a first direction is denoted as W1, a dimension of the housing in a second direction is denoted as T1, a dimension of the housing in a third direction is denoted as K1, the first direction is parallel to the length direction of the casing, the second direction is parallel to the width direction of the casing, and the third direction is parallel to the height direction of the casing; and the housing comprises a first wall and a second wall disposed opposite each other along the first direction, a third wall and a fourth wall disposed opposite each other along the second direction, and a fifth wall and a sixth wall disposed opposite each other along the third direction (Wu’s housing has six sides as claimed),
Claim 14 also recites:
a sum of thicknesses of the first wall and the second wall is denoted as a, a sum of thicknesses of the third wall and the fourth wall is denoted as b, a sum of thicknesses of the fifth wall and the sixth wall is denoted as c, satisfying (W1 - a) * (T1 - b) * (K1 - c) / (W1 * T1 * K1) ≥ 0.9, wherein (W1 – a) / W1 ≥ 0.97, (T1 – b) / T1 ≥ 0.965, and (K1 – c) / K1 ≥ 0.965;
This claim limitation merely requires that the battery housing is thin compared to lengths of the sides. Wu doesn’t explicitly teach this; however, battery housings typically have thin walls compared to wall length (in any direction) in order to save material cost, weight, and size. It was within the skill of a typical battery engineer, before the effective filing date of the present application, to adjust battery wall thickness to be strong enough to protect internal battery cell components, and to be thin enough to save material cost, weight, and size. Also, any typical battery likely would meet these equations.
Wu also teaches the following claim 14 limitations:
the housing comprises a housing body and at least one end cap, the housing body has an opening, the at least one end cap covers the opening, and the at least one end cap is provided with the electrode terminals (figure 2: third surface 203 is the end cap, and the remainder of the housing is the housing body; poles 210 are the electrode terminals); and
the housing body comprises the first wall, the second wall, the third wall, the fourth wall, and the fifth wall that are integrally formed, and the end cap is the sixth wall (figure 2), wherein
Claim 14 also recites:
the battery cell further comprises a first insulating member and a second insulating member, wherein the first insulating member is disposed between the fifth wall and the electrode assembly and abuts against the fifth wall, and the second insulating member is disposed between the sixth wall and the electrode assembly and abuts against the sixth wall (battery housing walls must be insulative in order to prevent short circuiting the battery to external components); and
Claim 14 also recites:
a maximum dimension of the first insulating member in the third direction is denoted as e1, and a maximum dimension of the second insulating member in the third direction is denoted as e2, satisfying: (W1 – a – 1.6 mm) * (T1 – b – 1.6 mm) * (K1 – c – e1 – e2) / (W1 * T1 * K1) ≥ 0.88, 0.3 mm ≤ e1 ≤ 1.2 mm, and 2 mm ≤ e2 ≤ 10 mm
These claim limitations merely require that the battery housing and insulation are thin compared to lengths of the sides. Wu doesn’t explicitly teach this; however, battery housings typically have thin walls (including any insulative component) compared to wall length (in any direction) in order to save material cost, weight, and size. It was within the skill of a typical battery engineer, before the effective filing date of the present application, to adjust battery wall thickness (including any insulative component) to be strong enough and to have enough insulation to protect internal battery cell components, and to be thin enough to save material cost, weight, and size. Also, any typical battery likely would meet these equations.
Wu also teaches the following claim 14 limitation:
W1 ≥ T1 (figure 2)
With regard to claim 15, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as described above. Wu also teaches the following claim 15 limitations:
wherein at least one end cap comprises two end caps, the housing body has two openings disposed opposite each other along the third direction, the two end caps respectively cover the two openings, and at least one of the two end caps is provided with the electrode terminals (figure 2: third surface 203 and a housing side opposite of 203 are the two end caps covering two openings, and the remainder is the housing body); and
the housing body comprises the first wall, the second wall, the third wall, and the fourth wall that are integrally formed, and the two end caps are the fifth wall and the sixth wall (figure 2), respectively,
Claim 15 also recites:
wherein the battery cell further comprises a third insulating member and a fourth insulating member, wherein the third insulating member is disposed between the fifth wall and the electrode assembly and abuts against the fifth wall, and the fourth insulating member is disposed between the sixth wall and the electrode assembly and abuts against the sixth wall (battery housing walls must be insulative in order to prevent short circuiting the battery to external components)
a maximum dimension of the third insulating member in the third direction is denoted as e3, and a maximum dimension of the fourth insulating member in the third direction is denoted as e4, satisfying: (W1 – a – 1.6 mm) * (T1 – b – 1.6 mm) * (K1 – c – e3 – e4) / (W1 * T1 * K1) ≥ 0.88, 2 mm ≤ e3 ≤ 10 mm, and 2 mm ≤ e4 ≤ 10 mm
These claim limitations merely require that the battery housing and insulation are thin compared to lengths of the sides. Wu doesn’t explicitly teach this; however, battery housings typically have thin walls (including any insulative component) compared to wall length (in any direction) in order to save material cost, weight, and size. It was within the skill of a typical battery engineer, before the effective filing date of the present application, to adjust battery wall thickness (including any insulative component) to be strong enough and to have enough insulation to protect internal battery cell components, and to be thin enough to save material cost, weight, and size. Also, any typical battery likely would meet these equations.
W1 ≥ T1 (figure 2)
With regard to claim 16, modified Wu teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 as described above. Claim 16 recites:
a positive electrode material of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells comprises lithium-containing phosphate, and a capacity of the battery cell is denoted as C, satisfying: C ≥ 350 Ah, and C / ((W1 – a) * (T1 – b) * (K1 – c)) ≥ 118 Ah/L, Ah/L represents amp-hours (Ah) by volume in liters (L)
This equation is an indication of volumetric energy density. Wu doesn’t explicitly provide all the dimensions for this calculation; nevertheless, Wu does teach improving volumetric energy density (page 10, lines 22-33). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize volumetric energy density, as taught by Wu.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partition
2 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/partition
3 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/partition
Prosecution Insights