DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/29/2025, and supplemental response and amendment on 9/30/2025 were received and have been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 51 and 60-66 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant should review the following:
The above claims are in a withdrawn status; however, inappropriate markings were added to the claim set without underlining the added character (see claim 51: “the plurality of battery” was changed to “the plurality-of battery” twice (final three lines of the claim).
“at least one spanner” of claim 52 is not supported anywhere within the disclosure. The instant application does not describe any embodiment in which a singular spanner is utilized, nor would be it be clear how to electrically configure such a construct. The instant application instead teaches, “one or more pairs of spanners” throughout the disclosure (P29 of the PGPUB).
Claim 63: the same support issues outlined in a prior Office Action with respect to similar language in the elected construct is found within claim 63 and is not supported.
Withdrawn claims will be re-evaluated at the time of finding an elected, allowable claim and be considered for rejoinder where appropriate. If Applicant wishes these claims to be reconsidered for rejoinder at the time of finding an elected claim allowable, care should be taken to provide corrections to these claims during prosecution given rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112.
Claim Objections
3. The prior Office Action objections to claims 52 and 69 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The prior Office Action rejections of claim 52, and thus dependent claims 53, 55-58, and 67-69, and claim 69 (newly added as of 3/18/2025) 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 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
5. Claim 52, and thus dependent claims 53, 55-58, and 67-69, and 70, and claim 70, 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 52 was amended and claim 70 newly added. Applicant cites essentially the entire disclosure for support (see page 9 of the response filed 9/30/2025 with “Figs. 3-6F and P24-37” cited for support which amounts to 12 drawings and 10 pages of the specification as filed). The “Detailed Description” of the instant applications spans from P23-45 with greater than 60% of the paragraphs cited for support; respectfully, this does not equate to specifically pointing out support for a corresponding amendment (MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06):
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
The Examiner has repeatedly requested Applicant’s representative comply with the above MPEP sections above; the reiterated requests for specifically citing support for claim amendments include:
Restriction Requirement mailed 5/20/2022 (page 3);
Non-Final mailed 10/24/2022 (pages 5-6);
Restriction Requirement mailed 4/20/2023 (page 7);
Final Rejection mailed 11/28/2023 (page 5);
Restriction Requirement mailed 4/1/2025 (pages 4-5)
This above is noted because it would be helpful if Applicant cited support for not only the clarity of the record and compliance with the above cited MPEP sections, but also such that rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph could be avoided by way of Applicant presenting claim amendments that are supported by the instant application.
The Examiner has reevaluated the claim as a whole including prior and new amendments, and cannot find support for the following, wherein it is noted none of the language below is found in the original claims, written description, and/or drawings, wherein Applicant has not specifically cited support or any explanation anywhere in the record for the following:
A) Claim 52- “a plurality of battery blocks…” The language does not exist in the written description, is not found in the original claims, is not shown in the drawings, and does not appear contemplated by the inventors at the time of the effective filing date. A plurality of battery blocks can include any number of battery blocks and is in effect a range. The written description instead teaches the following (P26 of the PGPUB; see also Fig. 3):
“a first battery block and a second battery block covered by a cover of the battery module…each of the first battery block and the second battery block comprising:” [the constituents claimed] with appropriate amendments to the final three lines required for antecedent basis purposes.
Accordingly, it does not appear that the written description or drawings supports more than two battery blocks, or “a plurality of battery blocks” as presented which allows for any number thereof.
B) Newly added claim 70 in its entirety. It is noted that the use of “configured to” requires an evaluation of the structure taught in the specification that achieves the subsequently claimed result/functionality within the claim. The Examiner cannot find such language in the written description, a word search of the instant application PGPUB for the terminology produces zero results (screenshot below of PE2E Search history), and Applicant’ has not specifically pointed out where the newly added claim is supported:
PNG
media_image1.png
310
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, per Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the above evaluation is sufficient to make such a rejection:
Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.")
Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required.
6. Claim 70 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 70 is newly added, wherein the Examiner cannot find support for the language and Applicant does not cite support for the language (issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph as detailed above). With respect to being indefinite, it is not clear what is structurally required to meet the result obtained language that has no basis in the written description. The use of “configured to” requires an evaluation of the structure taught in the specification or explicitly claimed that achieves the subsequently claimed result/functionality within the claim. Given such language does not exist in the written description, and the claim does not add any additional structure to the one or more pairs of spanners that achieves the result within the claim, it is not clear what is structurally necessary of the one or more pair of spanners such that they are configured to achieve the result obtained thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Applicant is directed to MPEP 2173.05(g) and that the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The language is considered an ambiguous functional limitation that only states a result obtained, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed or required to meet the claim. In such a scenario, Applicant may resolve the ambiguities of a functional limitation in a number of ways, the following two being applicable to the instant scenario: (1) applicant could demonstrate that the specification provides a general guideline and examples sufficient to teach a person skilled in the art when the claim limitation was satisfied (see Marosi, 710 F.2d at 803, 218 USPQ at 292); or (2) applicant could amend the claims to recite the particular structure that accomplishes the function.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. Rejection 1: Claims 52-53, 55-58, and 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rüter et al. (US 2014/0322582) in view Stephens et al. (US 2020/0398652), and Sora (US 2015/0372260).
Regarding claim 52, Rüter teaches a battery system intended for use within an electric vehicle (P3, 49, 91) comprising:
a plurality of battery modules 1 modularly connected to one another (P49), each battery module 1 (Fig. 1) comprising:
a central cooling plate 30 configured to have liquid coolant circulated therethrough (P45, 54; Figs. 1 & 5; note that glycol is a liquid),
a plurality of elongated cell block locks 50 (“battery blocks”) covered by a cover plate 12a of the battery module 1 ((Fig. 1, 12c) and electrically connected together in series and/or in parallel (P56-58, 59, 90, 105-107; Fig. 4), each battery block lock 50 (“battery block”) comprising:
an array of battery cell blocks 60 (“an array of battery cassettes”) (P52; Fig. 2),
a positive collective plate [105/107 as part of terminal connection plate 100 that connects to the adjacent cell-block lock 50- best shown in Fig. 4] comprising an end surface that contacts a first end surface of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”), a first side surface that contacts a first side surface of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”), and a second side surface that contacts a second side surface of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”) opposite the first side surface of the array of battery cassettes [one non-limiting interpretation is shown below]:
PNG
media_image2.png
503
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a negative collective plate [best shown in Fig. 7b and intrinsically required to make the electrical connection complete] (see Fig. 7b), and
one or more pairs of bridges 107 (“spanners”) contacting a portion of the side surfaces of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”) between the positive collective plate and the negative collective plate, the array of battery cell blocks 60 (“battery cassettes”) coupled together (P52-58, 56; Figs. 1-4, 7b) such that a plurality of cells 70 in the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of the battery cassettes”) form a positively charged surface and a negatively charged surface opposite the positively charged surface (P54, 58, 87),
wherein a first battery block lock 50 (“battery block”) of the plurality of battery block locks 50 (“battery blocks”) is connected to a first side of a central cooling plate 30, and wherein a second battery block lock 50 (“battery block”) of the plurality of battery block locks 50 (“battery blocks”) is connected to a second side of the central cooling plate 30 opposite the first side.
It is noted that Rüter teaches there are two-types of collection plates 100, with the first type shown in further detail in Fig. 4, and the second type shown in further detail in Figs. 6a-6c. For clarity, the relied upon components for the claimed positive and negative collective plates are annotated below:
PNG
media_image3.png
217
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rüter does not explicitly detail the design construct of the negative collective plate (NCP) and that it comprises:
“…an end surface that contacts a second surface of the array of battery cassettes opposite the first end surface of the array of battery cassettes, a first side surface that contacts the first side surface of the array of battery cassettes, and a second side surface that contacts the second side surface of the array of battery cassettes.”
Based on the required electrical connection that this NCP makes with the corresponding terminals of the cells, it appears this entity would be at a minimum a plate extending across the bottoms of the cells along with the illustrated tab projection therefrom as shown in Fig. 7b. Thus, based on the drawings and required electric construct, this NCP plate appears to intrinsically have at least an end surface that (directly or indirectly) contacts a second surface of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”), and a first side surface (i.e., the illustrated tab) that contacts the first side surface of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”). The NCP does not necessarily have a second side surface that contacts the second side surface of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”) as claimed.
The specific design or form of the negative collective plate having a second side surface that contacts the side surface of the array of battery cassettes appears to be a matter of design choice that would not modify the operation of the device as claimed. Applicant is directed to the following case law (MPEP 2144.04; emphasis mine):
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
The Examiner has reviewed in the instant application and the format or design of the negative collective plate is not described as providing any significance, nor is there any objective evidence in the record that a new or unexpected result is achieved by the specific format or design of the negative collective plate within the construct claimed. It is noted that that the above language has no antecedent basis in the written description, and is a description of the design format of the negative collective plate 604 shown in Fig. 4B such that its design or format cannot be argued as having any criticality given it was not described in the written description at all, let alone as having any specific importance.
Therefore, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the negative collective plate as claimed is significant, it is considered a matter of design choice to configure the negative collective plate of Rüter such that it has a second side surface that contacts the second side surface of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”) on the basis of the case law cited above and corresponding explanation, the motivation to provide a second side surface that contacts the second side surface of the battery cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”) being a mere duplication of parts (i.e., a duplicated tab of the one illustrated in Fig. 7b), the duplicated tab providing a redundant means by which the corresponding elongated cell block lock 50 (“battery block”) may be connected to other elongated cell block locks 50 (“battery blocks”) or a load.
Furthermore regarding claim 52, Rüter does not explicitly teach a construct of an electric vehicle comprising the battery system detailed therein; however, Rüter teaches the intended final use of the battery pack is to power an electric vehicle and be mounted therein (P3, 49, 91). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery pack within the construct of an electric vehicle given that is Rüter’s intended use thereof (P3, 49, 91).
Rüter fails to explicitly teach the electric vehicle comprises a vehicle frame with a floor, the battery system coupled to the floor between a front axle and a rear axle of the electric vehicle. Stephens teaches analogous art of a cooling system integrated with vehicle battery tray, and teaches an analogous construct of in which the battery tray 10 includes
cross member portions 48 “ including coolant channels 23''' (i.e., “a cooling plate”) located between adjacent battery modules 14 (Fig. 3A, 6, 6A). Stephens teaches the following:
[0003] Electric and hybrid electric vehicles are typically designed to locate and package battery modules on the vehicle in a manner that protects the batteries from damage when driving in various climates and environments, and also that protects the batteries from different types of impacts. It is also fairly common for vehicle frames to locate batteries in a portion of the frame or sub-structure of the vehicle, such as between the axles and near the floor of the vehicle, which can distribute the weight of the batteries across the vehicle frame and establish a low center of gravity for the vehicle.
Stephens further provides the following illustration of an electric vehicle 12 including said battery tray 10:
PNG
media_image4.png
276
521
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to position the battery system of Rüter, intended for use within an electric vehicle (P3, 49, 91), such that it is coupled to the floor between the axles (“a front axle and a rear axle” -see Fig. 1 above) given Stephens teaches such a technique is fairly common in order to provide the benefits of distributing the weight of the batteries across the vehicle frame, establishing a low center of gravity for the vehicle, and protecting the batteries from damage (P3).
Rüter does not explicitly teach that the plurality of battery modules 1 modularly connected to one another (P49) are electrically connected to each other; however, such a connection is implied and would be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, wherein furthermore, such a technique is routine in the art and would be immediately recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art as an option to increase the overall voltage/ current/capacity output depending on whether a series and/or parallel connection is made. Sora teaches such a technique is known and that by connecting multiple modules in series or in parallel, a battery pack is formed which corresponds to a desired current, voltage, or capacity (P3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to electrically connect the plurality of battery modules 1 of Rüter, taught as being modularly connected to one another (P49), to one another either in series, parallel, or a combination of both in order to achieve a desired current, voltage, or capacity and form a battery pack as taught by Sora and also immediately understood by one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 53, Rüter teaches wherein each battery block lock 50 (“battery block”) further comprising:
a positive conductive foil (any of upper contact plates 105 connected to the bridges/spanners 107) positioned on an upper surface of the battery block lock 50 (“battery block”), and
a negative conductive foil (any of lower contact plates 106 connected to the bridges/spanners 107) positioned on a lower surface of the battery block opposite the upper surface (6a-6c, 7b; entire disclosure).
Regarding claim 55, Rüter teaches wherein each battery cell 70 of the plurality of battery block locks 50 (“battery block”) is in physical contact with the central cooling plate 30 (Figs. 1, 5, 7b 11d; P54, 58, 87, 102).
Regarding claim 56, Rüter teaches wherein the central cooling plate 30 comprises a cover 32 (“upper flange”) [alternatively, tube 33, 34 reads on the upper flange), and a baseplate 31 defining a “central beam” as illustrated (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 57, Rüter teaches wherein a negative terminal of each battery cell of the plurality of battery cells 70 is positioned adjacent the central cooling plate (P51, 54, 58, 87, 102-103; note that P51 and P103 teach the mirror-image fashion of the cell block locks 50 on the cooling plate and P54, 58, 87, and 102 teach the negative terminal is positioned adjacent the cooling plate).
Regarding claim 58, Rüter teaches wherein a positive terminal of each battery cell is positioned on side opposite of the negative terminal (54, 58, 63-64, 86; Fig. 11d, 6a-6c and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 69, Rüter teaches wherein each cell block (“cassette”) of the array of cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”) and the terminal connection-plates 100 [part of the negative collective plate (“NCP”) or positive collective plate (“PCP”)] are connected via fixation means 101 (P56) which may be configured such that the contact plates 100, 105, 106 may have openings 102 (P56), bevels , or notches (i.e., “slots”) (P115) that may be fastened with screws or inserted using retention structures for the cell block 60 (P115). In the same paragraph, the contact plate is taught as alternatively or additionally comprising attachment devices such as lugs, projections and/or other structures which serve as attachment devices (P115).
Thus, Rüter teaches wherein each cell block (“cassette”) of the array of cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”) may comprise a retention structure configured to engage with a corresponding opening, bevel, or notch (i.e., “slot”) of the NCP or PCP, wherein suitable attachment devices (i.e., retention structures) are taught as including projections and lugs (i.e., “a locking protrusion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the described retention structure, that of a projection or lug (“locking protrusion”), given Rüter teaches such an entity is suitable for an attachment/retention structure (P115).
Moreover, the desire of Rüter is to provide a fixation means between the cell blocks 60 and the terminal-connection plates 100, 105, 106 (P56), such that the specific use of a locking protrusion as the retention structure on each of the cell blocks 60 to align and engage with a corresponding slot/hole/opening of the NCP or ECP is considered “Obvious to Try” based o
– Choosing From a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, With a Reasonable Expectation of Success.
At the relevant time, there is a recognized design need in the prior art to determine a suitable retention structure or fixaton means (P56, 115), there are a finite number of predictable potential solutions including standard, mechanical means (e.g., lugs, projections, screws, locking protrusions, bolts & nuts, etc.) and/or chemical means (e.g., adhesive) (P56), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it additionally considered an obvious expedient to select as the retention structure of Rüter that of a locking protrusion based on the “Obvious to Try” rationale for the reasons detailed above, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claim 70, the instant claim is being examined as best as possible given the subject matter does not appear supported (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a/first paragraph of claim 70), and the Examiner is not aware of any additional implicit or explicit structure required of the one or more pairs of spanners such that they are “configured to” achieves the result obtained (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph). Accordingly, given Rüter teaches all of the structure that is explicitly claimed for the one or more pairs of bridges 107 (“spanners”), the Examiner finds that they must be “configured to subdivide the cell blocks 60 (“the array of battery cassettes”) into a plurality of connected bricks for adjustment of voltage output of the battery module” as claimed.
8. Rejection 2: Claims 52-53, 55-58, 69-70 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rüter et al. (US 2014/0322582) in view Stephens et al. (US 2020/0398652), and Sora (US 2015/0372260), and Oliveira et al. (US 2020/0014006). Claims 67 and 68 are also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claims 52-53, 55-58, and 69-70, the rejections for each of said claims as outlined above is entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here.
With respect to the positive and collective plate design construct, this is a well-known construct for providing outer terminals for an analogous array of battery blocks (“an array of battery cassettes”) Ma, Mb, Mc (P239; Fig. 1) in which a respective collective plate 86 has the construct shown in Fig. 1 (reproduced below) and provided at each respective end thereof (P239) with one being the positive terminal (“positive collective plate”) and the other being the negative terminal (“negative collective plate”)):
PNG
media_image5.png
145
517
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
384
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention based on the design requirements of the electrical vehicle and battery system to configure each array of battery cell blocks 60 (“array of battery cassettes”) of Rüter with the necessary electrical extraction structures known in the state of the prior art such as electrical end connection means 86 having the construct shown above (at each end, one being a “positive collective plate,” the other being a “negative collective plate”) in order to provide the necessary means to extract electricity from the battery cell blocks 60 (“array of battery cassettes”) as desired based on the electrical requirements of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 67, Rüter as modified by Oliveira teaches that the positive collective plate and the negative collect plate are each C-shaped (P239; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 68, Rüter as modified by Oliveira fails to teach wherein the side surfaces of the positive collective plate and the negative collective plate are wedge- shaped; however, the court has held that a change in form “will not sustain a patent.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also:
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Therefore, given there is no objective evidence in the record that the particular form or design of the side plates being wedge-shaped (versus rectangular-shaped as taught by Rüter as modified by Oliveira), the configuration is considered an obvious choice in design and a simple change in form that does not modify the operation of the device.
9. Claim 53 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection 1; OR
Rejection 2
as applied to at least claim 52 above, and further in view of Eberhard et al. (US 2012/0121949) as a compact prosecution rejection.
The rejection is made in the instance that the structure is more clearly defined to match that shown in the figures with respect to the positive and negative conductive foils.
Regarding claim 53, Rüter fails to disclose each battery block lock 50 (“battery block”) also includes a positive conductive foil and a negative conductive foil as shown in the instant application figures (note this is compact prosecution rejection; what is actually claimed is met by Rüter).
In the same field of endeavor, Eberhard teaches analogous art of a battery block comprising a plurality of cylindrical cells with their positive terminals at one side and their negative terminals at another side (Fig. 1) connected to a cooling plate 13 as in Rüter (Fig. 2), wherein the configuration of Eberhard also comprises analogous collection plates 4, 11 (positive conductor plate 4 and negative conductor plate 11) performing the same function in the same position as the upper/ contact plate 105 and lower contact plate 105 of the spanners /terminal connection plate 100 construct shown in Figs. 6a-6b. Eberhard further teaches the use of graphite foil 10 between the battery cells and the negative conductor plate 11 is provided so as to improve the contact of the battery cells with the conductor plate 11 (P36; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide each battery block lock 50 (“battery block”) of Rüter with a graphite foil 10 (“negative conductive foil”) in the manner and configuration taught by Eberhard in order to improve the contact of the battery cells of Rüter with negative collective plate 106 (P36). Furthermore, it would additionally be obvious to duplicate graphite foil 10 and also provide it in the same fashion between the other end of Rüter’s cells and positive collective plate 105 in order to provide the predictable and known result of improving the contact between these entities in the instance improved contact is desired (Eberhard: P36; see also MPEP 2144.04, Section VI-B).
10. Claim 56 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection 1; OR
Rejection 2
as applied to at least claims 52 and 55 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 110191521) (machine translation provided) as a compact prosecution rejection.
The rejection is made in the instance that the structure is more clearly defined to match that shown in the figures with respect to the upper flange.
Regarding claim 56, Rüter teaches wherein the central cooling plate 30 comprises a cover 32 and baseplate 31 defining a “central beam” (“an upper flange”; alternatively projecting tube 33 or 34 reads on “an upper flange”) and a central beam as illustrated (Fig. 5).
In the instance the claim language is more clearly defined to claim the structure shown in Fig. 3 of the instant application and in the interest of compact prosecution, Xu is cited to teach it is a known technique to provide the construct shown (Fig. 1) for a cooling plate that includes an upper plate 1 integrally provided with an upper plate flange 101, a lower plate 2 integrally provided with a lower plate flange 102, a central cooling pipe 3 interposed therebetween, wherein the upper and lower flanges 101, 102 are utilized to fix the upper and lower plates to one another, the cooling plate being taught as not easily deformed (page 1; Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the central cooling plate 30 of Rüter such that the cover 32 and base plate 31 each have respective flanges (i.e. cover 32 includes an upper flange and base plate 31 has a lower flange), the technique and construct taught by Xu and providing the taught and predictable result of allowing the cover 32 and base plate 31 to be securely fixed together such that the cooling plate is not easily deformed.
11. Claim 69 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection 1; OR
Rejection 2,
as applied to at least claim 52 above, and further in view of Chan et al. (US 2012/0219846).
Regarding claim 69, the rejection of this claim as outlined in Rejection 1, and incorporated into Rejection 2, is also entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here.
The claim is further addressed with Chan teaching that a locking protrusion is a known option for a fastening means engaged in a slot of a battery cassette construct (P41; Figs. 4-9; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to look to known retention structures in similar constructs and to select the specific locking protrusion retention structure of Chan for the locking protrusion of Rüter to engage with the corresponding opening, bevel, or notch (i.e., “slot”) of the NCP or PCP taught by Rüter in order to connect the components to one another, thereby achieving the predictable, advantageous result of easy snap fitting (P41).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the previously rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant makes no comments or arguments with respect to the compact prosecution analysis (see pages 14-16 of the prior Office Action) of the prior art previously applied but withdrawn on the basis of claims being indefinite to the point of precluding prior art examination, or how the amendments distinguish over said prior art and the compact prosecution analysis provided. Accordingly, these rejections as previously outlined are reinstated in view of the definitive claims presented, and updated to address the amendments provided.
In the response filed, Applicant “respectfully reminds the Examiner that “[the] subject matter of the claim need not be described literally … in order for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement. Because the amendment is fully supported, Applicant respectfully requests that the pending claims be examined on the merits” (page 8 of the response filed on 9/30/2025).
Respectfully, the Examiner is aware of the standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph. For example, Applicant added the following limitation during prosecution that was not rejected as failing the written description requirement:
“a plurality of battery blocks covered by a cover of the battery module and electrically connected together in series and/or in parallel…”
This electrical connection is not described at all within the written description, original claims, or drawings; however, it is considered conventional or well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a module, wherein a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of such even if not explicitly described in the specification. It is noted that the battery blocks may not necessarily be directly electrically connected in this manner; the final electrical configuration could be one in which each block has their own respective terminals extending to the outside of the module; however, given the modules are taught as being electrically connected (P3-4), the blocks would ultimately be electrically connected to one another, if only indirectly electrically connected, with the specific type of electrical connection(s) claimed (i.e., series and/or parallel) being conventional, routine, and known to those having ordinary skill in the art.
As another example, the described construct of the positive collective plate and negative collective plate added to the claims solely on the basis of the drawings (Fig. 4B) and lacking an in haec verba basis, are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph because information contained in any one of the specification, claims or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter (MPEP 2163.06).
Each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph rejection to date, including the instant rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph, is due to language amended into the claims that finds no support on any basis as described in MPEP 2163. MPEP 2163.02:
If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. This conclusion will result in the rejection of the claims affected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph - description requirement.
This issue is further complicated because the record is not clear in terms of what Applicant is specifically relying upon for support of the newly added limitations. Applicant cites essentially the entire disclosure of “Figs. 3-6F and P24-37” (see page 9 of the response filed) which amounts to 12 drawings and 10 pages of the specification as filed. The “Detailed Description” of the instant applications spans from P23-45 with greater than 60% of the paragraphs cited for support. Respectfully, this does not equate to specifically pointing out support for a corresponding amendment (MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06). An example of specific citation for support would be, “Newly added claim 70 finds support at P[#]” or whatever specific paragraph number(s) that actually describe the newly added feature, and/or whatever specific figure illustrates the feature in the instance the feature is added solely on the basis of the drawings.
Duty of Disclosure
13. Herron et al. (US 2021/0098759) (corresponding to US Application No. 17/031,973 with identical inventors and legal representation) teaches a battery cassette with the following construct:
PNG
media_image7.png
523
636
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Any United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question should be made of record, as well as any prior art known to those with a duty of disclosure that is considered “material to patentability” cited in this or any other copending applications (i.e., their foreign counterparts) (MPEP 2001; 37 C.F.R. 1.56).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 2017/0125755) teaches battery cassettes and locking protrusions engaged with a slot in an analogous construct.
Fang et al. (US 2009/0233163) teaches stackable battery assembly brackets (i.e., “cassettes”) (Figs. 11-16).
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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 J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729