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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received 09/02/2025:
Claims 1-3,5, 8-10, 21-26, 29-32, 34-36 are pending in the current application. Claims 1,3,5,9, and 30 have been amended. Claims 4,6 and 33 have been canceled. Claims 34-36 are new.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 10, and 30 recites a battery electronic control module (BECM), a bussed electrical center (BEC). It is unclear what a BECM and BEC encompass and the disclosure does not provide further details, thus the EDS can be wires, the BECM can include any component that assists in controlling the battery (connector etc.) and the BEC can be circuit board, a bus bar or any region in which components are electrically connected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 35 recites “…wherein the single-piece unitary structure of the expandable polymer foam enclosure is free of seams, welds, fasteners, or removable panels”. However, the instant disclosure teaches using fasteners, or retention clips within the unitary structure of the enclosure to retain the battery system. While the disclosure recites “The expandable polymer foam enclosure 58 thereby helps retain the battery system components using a minimal amount of fasteners” (P64), retainer clips are still utilized to hold the battery system in place when foamed (P58).
Claim 36 recites “the expandable polymer foam enclosure includes a fire-retardant additive and a dielectric additive”. While the instant disclosure teaches “In addition, each of the foregoing expandable polymer foams may be configured to include fire resistive, insulating, dielectric, low viscosity, low molding temperature, and low curing time properties” (P44) support for “additives”, or both a fire-retardant additive and a dielectric additive cannot be found. Furthermore, the instant disclosure never recites “fire-retardant” (in addition to fire-retardant additive). While fire resistive properties are disclosed, this differs from a fire retardant which focuses on slowing down the spread of fire, whereas fire resistant materials prioritize maintaining structural integrity during a fire. The foam structure is inherently fire resistive (i.e., provides fire protection (P65)), but the disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art including additives in the foam enclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 25-26, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2016/0133896) in view of Kunimitsu et al. (US 2012/0161677) and Yamamoto et al. (US 2012/0121944), and further as evidenced by Narbonne et al. (US 2012/0003508).
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches a battery pack, or battery assembly 54 comprising a battery array 56, an electrical distribution system (EDS), or other components such as electrical connections 70/270 (P47.67; Fig. 10) and an expandable polymer foam 78 enclosure that encapsulates each of the battery array and EDS (P49-52). Baek teaches the battery pack comprises other electronic components within the assembly (P47.51.66-69 – or batteries connected with busbar assembly but silent in teaching what electronic components are used to provide communication/EDS between named parts).
Baek is silent in teaching how the electronic components are connected, or the particular components including the EDS comprising a wiring harness; however, Kunimitsu, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches how to electrically connect battery pack components (P100-140.189.270-278; Fig. 3.14.17).
Kunimitsu teaches including a wiring harness, or harnesses as part of an electrical distribution system (P141) within a battery module casing to transmit information from batteries to a control module (P141-159.164-168.264.270-278; Fig. 14.17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a wiring harness and the EDS of Kunimitsu within the battery pack of Baek to connect batteries and receive/send information.
The shell can also be formed by an injected foam material and non-limiting examples of forming the expandable polymer foam enclosure that is intentionally introduced, interconnected and distributed throughout the mass, may be injected forming the housing of the battery (P48-49.52).
Modified Baek is silent in explicitly teaching the expandable polymer foam enclosure is a single-piece unitary structure that excludes any joints; however, Yamamoto, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a battery pack comprising an expandable polymer foam enclosure (P10-11.50.54.80.188).
Yamamoto teaches forming an expandable polymer foam enclosure encapsulating a battery component and electronics as a single-piece unitary structure that excludes any joints to accurately position components within a pack and allow more flexibility with regards to battery packaging based on space while providing a clean exterior appearance with good productivity (P10.80-84.140)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the expandable polymer foam enclosure of modified Baek as a single-piece unitary structure in light of Yamamoto teaching the efficient packaging characteristics such as retention and ability to meet unique design parameters and particularly since the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art because modified Baek teaches forming the shell of the same that is injected, and that the shell foam may be injected and further MPEP § 2144.04 V B
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C Furthermore, the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Baek teaches injecting a foam to surround battery components to increase structural support and fixate components. Foams include polyurethane, polyethylene, and polypropylene (P49-52).
Yamamoto teaches injecting a resin foam to surround battery components to increase structural support and fixate components. The injected material flows to every nook and corner and is made of a reaction cured resin, such as an epoxy or urethane. The urethane resin is made of mixing a polyol and polyisocyanate for strength and impact resistance and the polyurethane may be used as a foam powder forming a porous body (P52.89-96.179-183).
Yamamoto of modified Baek teaches using a foam and porous powders, but is silent in explicitly teaching the material as an expanded polymer foam, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the porous body, formed by mixing polyol and isocyanate is an expanded foam. This is evidenced by Narbonne.
Narbonne teaches injected foams are inherently expanded and a rigid polyurethane resin is formed via mixing polyurethane and isocyante. The expanded polymer foam facilitates filling all recesses and cavities to form a rigid housing provided support and strength (P69-87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the enclosure of modified Baek in view of Yamamoto is an expanded foam, to provide adequate protection and filling, as taught by Narbonne. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established MPEP 2112.01 “A prima facie case has been established” where “[t]he art provide[s] the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties.” I
Regarding claim 2, modified Baek teaches the expandable polymer foam enclosure is made of non-limiting examples such as expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene, and polyurethane (P49.52), modified Baek in view of Yamamoto teaches the expandable foam can be expandable polyurethane to sufficiently secure components (P80-90
Baek is silent in teaching within the non-limited examples that the expandable foam can be expandable epoxy, an expandable polyurethane; however, Narbonne, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches using an expandable foam to protect a module (P61). Narbonne teaches using an expandable foam such as polyethylene and polyurethane (P73-74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use expanded polyurethane as the polymer foam of modified Baek because one of ordinary skill in the art would have be able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP § 2143, B. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious MPEP § 2143, C
Regarding claim 8, modified Baek is silent in teaching wiring secured relative to a portion of the array by a retainer clip; however, Kunimitsu teaches wiring secured relative to a portion of the battery array by a retainer clip, or holding member for ease of assembly and holding parts in place (P31-32.148).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use retainer clips, or holding members in modified Baek to secure the wiring relative to the battery array for assembly ease as taught by Kunimitsu.
Regarding claim 10, modified Baek teaches the battery pack of claim 1 comprising a battery electronic control module (BECM) and a bussed electric control center (BEC) wherein the expandable polymer foam enclosure encapsulates each of the battery array, the EDS, the BECM, and the BEC (P51-52. 65-67).
Regarding claim 25, modified Baek teaches the battery array 56 includes a plurality of battery cells 58 (P47) that are retained relative to one another by a retention strap (P10; Fig. 4.6).
Regarding claim 26, modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu teaches the EDS, or wiring/connecting lines are connected to the BEC (P16.117-122.265) and the BECM (P24.178) of the battery pack (P180-190.270). The wiring, or conductor lines/ communication lines connected to the BEC (P16.138.202.245-257). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the wiring connected to the BEC in order to use the module and connect it to communicate with the BECM.
Modified Baek teaches electrical components/connectors and wiring at least partially exposed outside of the expandable enclosure (P67; Fig. 10); furthermore, Kunimitsu teaches electrically connecting wiring, or conductor and communication lines attached to the BEC, to input/output connectors that are at least partially exposed outside of the enclosure form external connection (P16-18.138-139.222-223.263-265.276-278; Fig. 12-13.27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the wiring electrically connected to input/output connectors at least partially exposed outside of the expandable polymer foam enclosure of modified Baek to connect and communicate with external components. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Regarding claim 35, modified Baek in view of Yamamoto teaches forming the sing-piece unitary structure as one piece without joints for a clean exterior appearance can be provided with good productivity (P84.140).
Regarding claim 36, modified Baek in view of Yamamoto teaches including a fire-retardant additive and a dielectric additive, wherein the resin is used to have specific dielectric properties (P110.181).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsurumi et al. (US 2011/0155485).
Regarding claim 3, modified Baek teaches the battery is connected to a bus bar assembly (P47) and electronic components are included in the battery including BECM, BEC, wiring and other components (P51. 67)
Modified Baek is silent in teaching a plurality of input/output connectors, wherein wiring connects between the plurality of input/output connectors and the EDS; however, Kunimitsu teaches how to electrically connect battery pack components. Kunimitsu teaches a plurality of input/output connectors wherein wiring connects the battery and electronic distribution center, (P103-105. 136-138. 144-148; Fig. 12-21), including power supply lines connected to batteries and bus bar BEC to manage and control the battery information, make sure the battery operates stably and to charge external loads (P20-28. 156). Wiring or conducting lines connect between the plurality of input/output conductors that BEC (P136-148).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a plurality of input/output connectors wherein wiring connects between the connectors and the battery and EDS/BEC, as taught by Kunimitsu, in the battery pack of modified Baek to manage and control the battery information, make sure the battery operates stably and to charge external loads.
Modified Baek teaches the electrical components are enclosed within the expandable polymer foam enclosure (P51) where Yamamoto teaches the importance of having opening exposing external connections outside of the enclosure for charging and discharging (P53). Modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu teaches the plurality of input/output connectors are connected to a load outside of the battery pack (P10-108. 122). Furthermore, Tsurumi, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches including an electrical system including a plurality of input/output connectors, wherein wiring connects between the plurality of input/output connectors and the EDS within a battery enclosure, where the plurality of input/output connectors are exposed outside of the battery enclosure to connect with a load (P8-10. 36. 80-90; Fig. 3-5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the input/output connectors (i.e. terminals) exposed outside of the expandable polymer foam enclosure in order to be connected to an external load to provide power.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu and Yamamoto as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Meintschel et al. (US 2011/0033736).
Regarding claim 5, modified Baek teaches the battery array 256 is positioned adjacent to a heat exchanger plate 279 and (in light of Yamamoto and modified Baek teaching foam forming container) the heat exchanger plate 279 is encapsulated by the expandable polymer foam enclosure (P65; Fig. 7)
Modified Baek is silent in teaching a thermal interface material disposed between the battery array and the heat exchanger plate; however, Meintschel, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches including a thermal interface material, or heat-conductive material, between a battery array, or cell assembly and heat exchanger plate to increase heat transfer thereby improving performance and durability (P18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a thermal interface material disposed between the battery array and the heat exchanger plate of modified Baek to increase heat transfer thereby improving performance and durability as taught by Meintschel.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu and Yamamoto as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0076493).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Baek in view of Yamamoto teaches using a single polymer foam enclosure to fill and surround all nooks and spaces between components within the enclosure (P9-11.80-86.199), and therefore it would be obvious that all spaces are integrally filled as part of the enclosure.
While silent in teaching there is a gap between the cells where the foam is formed, Park, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches using an epoxy, polyurethane or resin material in a battery pack (P35). The resin forms a spacer that extends within a gap formed between a first battery cell and a second battery cell 20 for better thermal control, and shock and vibration resistance (P32. 37; Fig. 7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the expandable polymer foam enclosure form a spacer that extends within a gap formed between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the battery array of Baek to provide improved thermal control, and shock and vibration resistance as taught by Park. Furthermore, the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art of Park, as Yamamoto of modified Baek teaches forming the components as one piece for ease of manufacture. MPEP 2143
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Kunimitsu and Yamamoto as applied to at least claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 2014/0363711).
Regarding claim 21, modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu teaches wiring secured relative to a portion of the battery array by a retainer clip, or holding member (P31-32.148).
Modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu is silent in teaching the retainer clip includes a base, a pair of retention legs, and a pair of positioning legs and further wherein the retention legs are flanked by the positioning legs; however, Zhao, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches using a retention clip, or carrier assembly for securing wires relative to a battery array (P21-29).
Zhao teaches a retention clip, or carrier assembly 102 with retention legs 214/216 flanked by positioning legs 210/212 and a base, or cavity/bottom 154 to secure wiring and busbars relative to a portion of a battery array (P37-38; Fig. 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the retainer clip, or carrier assembly of Zhao in modified Baek to secure the positioning of the wiring and busbars where the retention cli includes a base, and a pair of retention legs flanked by a pair of positioning legs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results were reasonably predictable. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Regarding claim 22, modified Baek in view of Zhao teaches the retention legs 214/216 extend at a different angle from the base compared to the positioning legs 210/212 (Fig. 6B).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Kunimitsu and Yamamoto as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Buck (US 2007/0259258).
Regarding claim 23, modified Baek teaches the expandable polymer foam is injected around the electronic components and into spaces around the battery array (P52; Fig. 3) while modified Baek in view of Yamamoto teaches filling every nook and gap to maximize contacted surface area improving adhesion (P84-86).
Modified Baek is silent in explicitly teaching the polymer foam fills in all of a plurality of gaps between adjacent battery cells of the battery array; however, Buck, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches injecting polymer foam to eliminate all air gaps between cells and the case.
Buck teaches encapsulating each battery cell in an array eliminating all of a plurality of gaps between the cells to prevent reduced product life or premature failure (P10.15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the polymer foam fill in all gaps between adjacent battery cells of the battery array of modified Baek to prevent premature failure and leakage, as taught by Buck.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Kunimitsu and Yamamoto as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Neil et al. (US 2018/0223070).
Regarding claim 24, modified Baek teaches the expandable polymer foam is injected around the electronic components and into spaces around the battery array (P52; Fig. 3) while modified Baek in view of Yamamoto teaches filling every nook and gap to maximize contacted surface area improving adhesion (P80-86). Therefore, it would have been obvious to eliminate all gaps within the enclosure, such as those between the EDS and battery array.
Furthermore, while modified Baek is silent in explicitly teaching the expandable polymer foam enclosure establishes a gapless arrangement relative to each of the battery array and the EDS; however, O’Neil, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches using a polymer foam to fully fill the open space inside of battery casing completely covering battery cells, and establishing a gapless arrangement between encapsulated components to prevent heating problems (P25.32-33.42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the expandable foam, as taught by O’Neil, establish a gapless arrangement between encapsulated components of the battery pack of modified Baek to prevent heating problems and limit free space within the pack. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Claims 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Kunimitsu and Yamamoto as applied to at least claim 26 above, and further in view of Fu et al. (US 2019/0273232).
Regarding claim 29, modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu teaches input/output connectors partially exposed outside of the enclosure for external connected, as recited in the rejection of claim 28 above.
Modified Baek in view of Kunimitsu is silent in teaching the input/output connectors supported by a connector header bracket that is mounted on the expandable foam enclosure; however, Fu, in a similar field of endeavor related to a battery pack, teaches having the input/output connectors supported by a connector header bracket, or metal surface to enlarge the electrically conductive contact area when connecting to an external load (P86-87; Fig. 8C.11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the input/output connectors of modified Baek supported by a connector header bracket mounted to the expandable foam enclosure to increase the contact area when connecting to an external load, easing the use of the pack. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale C).
Claims 30-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2016/0133896) in view of Okada et al. (US 2013/0273412), O’Neil et al. (US 2018/0223070) and Okada’16 (US 20160204400).
Regarding claim 30, Baek teaches a battery pack, or battery assembly 54 comprising a battery array 56, a BECM, a BEC, and other electrical components where the expandable polymer foam enclosure encapsulates each of the battery array, the BECM, the BEC and the other various components (P47.51-52.62; Fig.3.7). The expandable foam enclosure is made of a structural foam polymeric based material, or made of the same material (P49) as taught by the instant disclosure to be structural foamed materials (P44 instant disclosure teaches expandable polypropylene as structural foam). The expandable polymer foam enclosure is a sealed enclosure that establishes the outermost surface of the battery pack (P48; Fig. 7).
The battery pack comprises other electronic components within the assembly (P47.51.66-69 – or batteries connected with busbar assembly but silent in teaching what electronic components are used to provide communication/EDS between named parts).
Baek is silent in teaching how the electronic components are connected, or the particular components including the EDS comprising a wiring harness; however, Okada, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches how to electrically connect battery pack components (P52-63).
Okada teaches including a wiring harness 7 as part of an electrical distribution system, or battery system to transmit information to and from the battery cells protecting the battery (P53-54; Fig.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a wiring harness and the EDS, or battery management system of Okada within the battery pack of Baek to connect and secure batteries and receive/send information.
Modified Baek teaches the battery arrays may be in any configuration, such as stacked arrays connected via bus bar assemblies (P46-47; Fig. 3), but is silent in teaching a retention strap that surrounds a perimeter of the battery array for retaining a plurality of battery cells of the battery array relative to one another; however, Okada’16 teaches a retention strap 112 that surrounds an entire rectangular perimeter of the battery array in both a first and second axis for retaining a plurality of battery cells of the battery array relative to one another to provide a consistent positioning of cells, making them less prone to movement (P1-5.28.30.35.37; Fig. 2.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the retention straps of Okada’16 surrounding the battery array of modified Baek to prevent the cells from additional swelling and movement.
Modified Baek teaches the expandable polymer foam is injected around the electronic components and into spaces around the battery array (P52; Fig. 3).
Modified Baek is silent in explicitly teaching the expandable polymer foam enclosure establishes a gapless arrangement relative to each of the battery array the retention strap, the BECM, the BEC, and the EDS; however, O’Neil, in a similar field of endeavor related to battery packs, teaches using a polymer foam to fully fill the open space inside of battery casing completely covering battery cells, and establishing a gapless arrangement between encapsulated components to prevent heating problems (P25.32-33.42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the expandable foam, as taught by O’Neil, establish a gapless arrangement between encapsulated components of the battery pack of modified Baek to prevent heating problems and limit free space within the pack. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 31, modified Baek is silent teaching the battery system includes a retainer clip that retains a position of the at least one wiring harness relative to the battery array; however, Okada teaches using a retention clip, or harness cover 10/50 coupled with separators that retains a position of the at least one wiring harness 7 relative to the battery array, to restrict positional deviation or movement of the harness and reduce damage to the harness (P56-57.63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the retention clip, or harness cover integrally formed with a separation wall of Okada to retain a position of the at least one wiring harness relative to the battery array of modified Baek to restrict movement and prevent damage.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 32, modified Baek in view of Okada teaches the retainer clip includes a base, or separators 2 and a pair of retention legs, or coupling protrusions 26/27/14 that protrude from the base via integrally formed cover 10 (P63, and further wherein the base, or separator 10 is received between a first battery cell and a second battery cell of the plurality of battery cells, and the pair of retention legs is arranged to hold the at least one wiring harness 7 relative to the battery array (P57.61-66; Fig. 5-13).
Regarding claim 34, modified Baek in view of Okada’16 teaches the retention strap is a webbed strap comprised of woven filament (P3.30).
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed 09/02/2025:
Applicant argues:
‘Yamamoto teaches using a reaction-curable resin. Baek teaches using an “expandable polymer foam”. Accordingly, the resulting product would not be what has been claimed in claim 1. There is no evidence that the molding methodology of Yamamoto would work as intended if foam were used in place of the reaction-curable resin. Yamamoto' s resin-based molding process is fundamentally incompatible with expandable polymer foams, which require different curing dynamics, expansion behavior, and mold design. A POSITA would recognize that substituting foam into Yamamoto's process would require substantial redesign and would not yield predictable results.’
The above arguments are unpersuasive. Mere lawyer's arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…."
Baek teaches a foam shell as a support structure that entirely surrounds the battery array, wherein the foam shell can be made of a structural, microcellular foam material. In this disclosure, the term “foam” refers to any material containing numerous cells, intentionally introduced, interconnecting or not, distributed throughout a mass. Non-limiting examples of suitable foam materials include expanded polypropylene (EPP) or expanded polyethylene (EPE, cross-linked or uncross linked). The materials may be used in either a steam chest molding process or an injection molding process to manufacture a foam shell having any desired shape. A foam material, such as polyurethane, is also injected around components for fixation to increase structural support. The foams are cured. (P48.49.52).
Yamamoto also teaches using a material that is cured, or a reaction-curable resin. As an example, polyols including a polyurethane resin or polyether which have high elastic recuperative power, excellent chemical resistance, and cost performance are used which can be used as a foam powder to create a porous body (P88-91.95). The polyurethane resin is made of a polyol and polyisocyanate and has excellent fluidity, provides support and strength (P100-107). An example includes mixing urethane with isocyanate to form the packaging (P90-98.154-155).
Thus, Yamamoto and Baek both teach using a porous polyol foam, to surround battery elements and electronics to provide support and protection for a battery module.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that polyurethane foam powder is expandable. This expansion occurs through a chemical reaction between polyols and diisocyanates, creating a foam that can fill gaps and provide insulation. Thus, while Yamamoto is silent in explicitly teaching the resin material is an expandable polymer foam, such properties be necessarily/inherently present. This is further evidenced by Narbonne et al. (US 2012/0003508), teaching using expandable foams such as polyurethane, polyethylene etc. to fill spaces to form a rigid plastic foam housing and that the expansion of polyurethane resin for foam forming occurs via a chemical reaction with isocyanate that will cause the polyurethane to foam (P70-78).
Therefore, the foams of Baek and the formed porous body based on a reaction of polyurethane and isocyanate of Yamamoto are both inevitably and inherently expanded foam bodies. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established MPEP 2112.01 “A prima facie case has been established” where “[t]he art provide[s] the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties.” Id. “[T]he burden (and opportunity) then falls on applicant to rebut that prima facie case.” "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use."
Applicant argues: Baek teaches away from incorporating an enclosure that "is a single-piece unitary structure that excludes any joints. A key aspect of the foam shell 60 of Baek is that the shell 60 has joints (e.g., between the upper shell 64 and lower shell 66) that allow the battery array 56 and/or electronic components 70 to be accessed for servicing If one were to modify Baek such that the various joints were omitted from the enclosure, then it would become impossible to service the encapsulated battery components. Baek would thereby be rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of providing a serviceable battery system, which is impermissible in an effort to manufacture a prima facie case of obviousness.
The above argument is unpersuasive. First, Baek teaches the shell as a two-piece shell as another non-limiting embodiment, where the two pieces can be glued together to secure the shell and the components (batteries, electronics etc.) can be foamed and fixated into place within the shell while also providing an embodiment showing a one-piece support structure (P49-52.65; Fig. 5). Therefore, while Baek teaches some embodiments with removable parts to make the module serviceable, the primary purpose of the invention is to support and protect the battery assembly and components with a design to absorb impact energy and insulating the array from external temperatures and emphasis on the embodiments being non-limiting (P1.4.24-25.36).
Therefore, the argument falls short of what is required to “teach away.” MPEP 2141.02 notes that: "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." MPEP 2145
Applicant argues: the battery pack of claim 1 provides unexpected advantages, including improved vibration damping, enhanced thermal uniformity, and simplified manufacturing due to the jointless, gapless foam enclosure.
As evidenced above, the prior art does teach the same benefits. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant argues the barrier 62 of Baek provides the "outermost surfaces" of the battery 54 rather than the foam shell 60.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Baek teaches the barrier can be excluded from the assembly (P48).
Applicant argues Okada does not include a portion between cells. Examiner disagrees and notes interpretation using rejection above.
Accordingly, Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sabri, Mohanad Muayad, and K. G. Shashkin. "The mechanical properties of the expandable polyurethane resin based on its volumetric expansion nature." Magazine of Civil Engineering 6 (98) (2020): 9811 teaches expandable polyurethane resin is formed by mixing a polyol and isocyanate which react, releasing heat and swells.
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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752