DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10//2025 has 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. The following was previously noted and is repeated here. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 8-13, in the reply filed on 10/15/2024 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of without traverse of Species A-1, Species B-2 (claim 4), and Species C-2 is acknowledged, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12 reading on the elected Species, enumerated below from the original restriction requirement for clarity of the record:
PNG
media_image1.png
445
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The objection to the abstract is maintained. As detailed in the Office Action mailed 6/6/2025, the meaning and construct of the busbar 510, the bus bar assembly 500, and the bus bar frame 520 is not comprehensible in terms of the required construct or meaning thereof. The specification was corrected to remove all language pertaining to the busbar assembly 500, the busbar 510, and the busbar frame 520 including the reference numerals from the drawings; however, these same corrections were not provided to the original or corrected abstract filed 12/10/2025. All reference to the busbar assembly 500, busbar 510, and busbar frame 520 should be removed within the abstract as was done in the specification; it is highly recommended Applicant utilize claim 1 as a general guideline for what should be included in the abstract. The prior analysis from the Final Rejection mailed 6/6/2025 is found on pages 3-4 and not repeated here. It is noted that a corrected abstract of the disclosure must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is still required.
The objections to the disclosure filed on 8/13/2025 for failure to provide sensical sentences employing proper grammar are withdrawn in view of the corrections provided, with one exception which is maintained:
P25 remains objected to as it recites “the terminal” versus the “terminal unit.” It appears unit was deleted on 1/11/2022 which was objected to on 12/4/2024. It appears this was not corrected back to terminal unit during prosecution:
PNG
media_image2.png
86
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given terminal unit is utilized throughout the specification and claims; for clarity, this should be amended to “terminal unit”.
The objection under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure is withdrawn in view of the corrections filed 12/10/2025 which are accepted.
The objection to the title is withdrawn; the title provided on 12/10/2025 is accepted.
Claim Analysis
Claim 1 was amend to recite the following:
“a terminal unit on a top surface of the first submodule connected to the connection busbar, the top surface of the first submodule being spaced apart from a bottom surface of the first submodule in a vertical direction;”
Applicant cites support at P7, 62, and Figs. 1 & 2 (page 10 of the response filed 12/10/2026). The feature quoted above is not found anywhere in these cited portions; it is neither described in the specification, nor is a bottom surface of the first submodule illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2. At P56 (reference to PGPUB), a submodule 100 is defined a component formed a result of a plurality of unit cells. Given the submodule 100 is a three-dimensional entity defined by at least a plurality of unit cells, it intrinsically has a bottom surface (whether a housing of the submodule, a housing of the unit cell(s), etc.) spaced apart from the top surface of the first submodule where the terminal unit 20 exists (see Fig. 1). Accordingly, while the instant application does not describe or illustrate the underlined feature claimed above, it is considered intrinsic of the construct claimed.
It is respectfully requested that Applicant provide such an analysis for future amendments not found in the written description or illustrated in the drawings versus citing portions that do not describe/illustrate the feature for clarity of the record.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for lacking proper articles:
PNG
media_image3.png
56
665
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This should be corrected to: “wherein the terminal unit, the connection busbar, the blocking plate are stacked in the vertical direction.”
Appropriate correction is required. See subsequent rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph for lack of a conjunction or numerical phrase regarding the series of items recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11-12, and 16, are 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 1 as amended is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
56
665
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The claim omits a conjunction or numerical clause such that it is not clear whether the intent is that all of these entities are stacked in the vertical direction (i.e., “…wherein the terminal unit, [the] connection busbar, and [the] blocking plate are stacked in the vertical direction); if at least one or more are stacked in the vertical direction (i.e., use of “and/or” among the options instead of just “and”); or a numerical clause is missing (i.e., “wherein [at least one of; at least two of] the terminal unit, [the] connection busbar, [and] [the] blocking plate [are] stacked in the vertical direction). The meets and bounds of the claim are unclear thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required. For prior art evaluation, any option will be implemented to evaluate the claims, and at least one interpretation applied will be applied that meets the most limiting option possible which is that all three (“and” option”) are stacked in the vertical direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. Rejection A: The rejection of claims 1, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder et al. (WO 2019/242917) (using family member US 2021/0265750 as an English-language translation thereof) in view of Loo (US 2012/0301765) is maintained and updated to reflect the amendments provided. Newly added claim 16 is also rejected under this heading.
In view of the issue outlined under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph, multiple interpretations are set forth against the possible interpretations of the claim.
First Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, Rieder teaches a battery pack comprising:
a plurality of submodules (12, 14); and
a connection busbar 22 configured to connect a first submodule 12 and a second submodule 14 of the plurality of submodules (12, 14) to each other,
wherein the first submodule 12 of the plurality of submodules comprises:
a terminal unit 16 on a top1 surface of the first submodule connected to the connection busbar 22, the top surface of the first submodule being spaced from a bottom surface (multiple options) of the first submodule in a vertical direction (y-direction);
a retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) configured to cover the terminal unit 16 in the vertical direction (y-direction) (best shown in Fig. 2), an upper end of the connection busbar 22, and a side surface of the connection busbar 22 (Figs. 1, 2); and
an insulating housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) covering the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) so that the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) is between the insulation housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) and the connection busbar 22 (Figs. 1-3),
wherein the terminal unit 16, [the] connection busbar 22, (and?) [the] retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) are stacked in the vertical direction (y-direction) (Fig. 2).
For clarity of the record, as one non-limiting interpretation of the subject matter of Rieder, the orientation of the components is not limited to that shown on the page; thus, the y-direction can be the claimed vertical direction, with one option for a top surface and a bottom surface annotated in the second module (corresponding surfaces of the first module being what is relied upon; the second module 14 only utilized because it is easier to see/annotate):
PNG
media_image4.png
596
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig. 2, the terminal unit (16 in the rejection of record but using 18 for demonstration purposes for the same reasons above), the connection bus bar 22, and the retaining clip 24 (“blocking plate”) are all stacked in the vertical direction (the y-direction):
PNG
media_image5.png
342
385
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, this one interpretation provides an interpretation of the claim that meets the most limited version of the options with respect to the indefinite clause (i.e., all three of the terminal unit, the connection busbar, and the blocking plate are stacked in the vertical direction).
Second Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, Rieder teaches a battery pack comprising:
a plurality of submodules (12, 14); and
a connection busbar 22 configured to connect a first submodule 12 and a second submodule 14 of the plurality of submodules (12, 14) to each other,
wherein the first submodule 12 of the plurality of submodules comprises:
a terminal unit 16 on a top surface of the first submodule connected to the connection busbar 22, the top surface of the first submodule being spaced from a bottom surface of the first submodule in a vertical direction (z-direction);
a retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) configured to cover the terminal unit 16 in the vertical direction (z-direction) (Figs. 1-2), an upper end of the connection busbar 22, and a side surface of the connection busbar 22 (Figs. 1, 2); and
an insulating housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) covering the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) so that the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) is between the insulation housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) and the connection busbar 22 (Figs. 1-3),
wherein [at least two of?] the terminal unit 16, [the] connection busbar 22, and [the] retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) are stacked in the vertical direction (z-direction) (e.g., the terminal 16 and the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) are stacked in the vertical direction (z-direction); alternatively, the connection busbar 22 and the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) are stacked in the vertical direction (z-direction)).
Figures 1-3 of Rieder are reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image6.png
281
264
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
384
547
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
390
525
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Rieder is only deficient in teaching a pack case configured to receive the plurality of submodules (12, 14), a routine and standard configuration in the prior art of battery packs as taught by Loo. Rieder teaches the plurality of submodules 12, 14 are intended for motor vehicles (P3), wherein Loo teaches that a battery case 10 (“pack case”) is used to mount battery modules 36 therein to be used for electric vehicles (P2, 13, 38-42; Figs. 1-5) in order to protect the modules.
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 of Rieder, intended for use within a motor vehicle (P2), to include a pack case 10 in which the battery modules 12, 14 are mounted given this is a standard, routine configuration in the prior art as taught by Loo (P2, 13, 38-42; Figs. 1-5), thereby providing the predictable result of protection for the modules held therein.
Regarding claim 8, Rieder teaches wherein the insulating housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) comprises: an upper end cover provided at an upper part of the battery pack at which he terminal unit 16 and the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) are located; and a side cover extending downwardly from a front edge of the upper end cover (see Figs. 1-4 illustrating the structure).
Regarding claim 12, Rieder teaches wherein the insulating housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) is configured to entirely cover the connection busbar 22 (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Rieder teaches the insulating housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) has an upper end cover (see topmost surface of insulating housing 26- the line extending from 26 in Fig. 3 touches the upper end cover; note other interpretations exist) covering the top surface, and a side cover (i.e., obstructed-from-view in Fig. 3, best shown in Fig. 4) covering a front surface of the first submodule (annotated below for clarity):
PNG
media_image9.png
488
583
media_image9.png
Greyscale
10. The rejection of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder et al. (WO 2019/242917) (using family member US 2021/0265750 as an English-language translation thereof) in view of Loo (US 2012/0301765) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshihara et al. (US 2009/0104516) is maintained.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Rieder is silent as to the specific material of the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”), and that it comprises an insulation material that exhibits chemical resistance and thermal insulation (claim 2), and the insulation material comprises mica or ceramics (claim 4).
In the same field of endeavor, Yoshihara teaches analogous art of a battery module and that a suitable material for a holder (the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) holding the connection bus bar to the terminal unit) includes a resin material filled mica (P132). MPEP § 2144.07 cites the following case law:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select a resin filled with mica as the specific material for the retaining clamp 24 (“blocking plate”) of Rieder given Yoshihara teaches it is a suitable material for the intended use, Yoshihara teaching such a material is suitable for a holder frame within a battery module (P132).
11. The rejection of claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder et al. (WO 2019/242917) (using family member US 2021/0265750 as an English-language translation thereof) in view of Loo (US 2012/0301765) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Jessen et al. (US 4,546,056) is maintained.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Rieder is silent as to the specific material of the insulating housing 26 outside of it being insulating and being an injection-molded part (P39), and thus does not teach that the insulating housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) comprises a thermal insulation material that comprises mica or ceramics (claims 9 and 11).
In the same field of endeavor, Jessen teaches analogous art of a module and that the housing includes mica (claims 4, 8, 9, 10; entire disclosure relied upon).
MPEP § 2144.07 cites the following case law:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select mica as the specific material for the insulating housing 26 (“thermal insulation cover”) of Rieder given Jessen teaches it is a suitable material for the intended use (claims 4, 8, 9, 10; entire disclosure relied upon).
12. Rejection B: The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8-9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR 10-2019-0095045) (machine translation provided) in view of Loo (US 2012/0301765) and Nakayama et al. (US 2019/0051882) is maintained. Newly presented claim 16 is also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a battery pack (P1-6; Figs.1-11) comprising:
a plurality of submodules 10 (11, 12) (P2-6, 28-29); and
a connection busbar 21 configured to connect a first submodule 11 and a second submodule 12 of the plurality of submodules (11, 12) to each other (P30),
wherein the first submodule 11 of the plurality of submodules (11, 12) comprises:
a terminal unit 15 (16) on a top surface of the first submodule connected to the connection busbar 21 (P30), the top surface of the first submodule being spaced from a bottom surface of the first submodule in a vertical direction (see Fig 2; note this could have multiple interpretations as to what are the top and bottom surfaces are as “on” is not specified as directly on or indirectly on such that multiple interpretations exist, and the drawings are not limited to the orientation show on the page);
a bus bar housing 30 (“a blocking plate”) “covering the outside of the busbar to protect or insulate the bus bar” (P12) and as shown in the figures, covering the terminal unit 15 (16) in the vertical direction (at least Fig. 6; annotated below in one interpretation of the subject matter), an upper end of the connection busbar 21, and a side surface of the connection busbar 21 (Figs. 4-10; P33-69); and
PNG
media_image10.png
271
481
media_image10.png
Greyscale
a lid 35 (“cover”) covering the bus bar housing 30 (“blocking plate”) so that the bus bar housing 30 (“blocking plate”) is between the lid 35 (“cover”) and the connection busbar 21 (Figs. 2-11; P39),
wherein the terminal unit 16, the connection busbar 21, and the bus bar housing 30 (“blocking plate”) are stacked in a vertical direction (see at least Fig. 6 embodiment as annotated above showing the feature; alternatively, wherein the at least two of the above components are stacked in a vertical direction; alteratively, just one (“or” conjunction).
Oh is deficient in teaching a pack case configured to receive the plurality of submodules (11, 12), a routine and standard configuration in the prior art of battery packs as taught by Loo. Oh teaches the plurality of submodules 11, 12 are intended for motor vehicles (P2), wherein Loo teaches that a battery case 10 (“pack case”) is used to mount battery modules 36 therein to be used for electric vehicles (P2, 13, 38-42; Figs. 1-5) in order to protect the modules.
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 of Oh, intended for use within a motor vehicle (P3), to include a pack case 10 in which the battery modules 11, 12 are mounted given this is a standard, routine configuration in the prior art as taught by Loo (P2, 13, 38-42; Figs. 1-5), thereby providing the predictable result of protection for the modules held therein.
Oh is further deficient in teaching lid 35 (“cover”) is made of a thermal insulation material such that it is considered a thermal insulation lid 35 (i.e., “a thermal insulation cover”) as claimed. In the same field of endeavor of electric storage modules for electric vehicles including busbars (P3-11), Nakayama teaches analogous art of a busbar module protecting and insulating a busbar 12 that includes a busbar holding plate 13 [analogous to bus bar housing 30 (“blocking plate”) of Oh] and a busbar cover 14 [analogous to lid 35 (“cover”) of Oh]. Nakayama teaches suitable materials for the busbar cover 14 includes a synthetic resin having insulation properties including polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene terephthalate, polyester, etc. (P54), said materials intrinsically being both electrically insulating and thermally insulating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to analogous constructs in the same field of endeavor to select an appropriate material for lid 35 (“cover”) of Oh, and to select the thermally insulating materials taught by Nakayama including polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene terephthalate, polyester, etc. (P54), in order to provide the predictable results of providing a lid 35 (“cover”) suitable for its intended use, the courts holding:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Oh teaches the bus bar housing 30 (“blocking plate”) insulates the busbar (P12, 33, 37). Oh fails to explicitly teach the use of an insulation material that exhibits chemical resistance and thermal insulation as claimed (claim 2), and specifically mica or ceramics (claim 4).
In the same field of endeavor of electric storage modules for electric vehicles including busbars (P3-11), Nakayama teaches analogous art of a busbar module protecting and insulating a busbar 12 that includes a busbar holding plate 13 [analogous to bus bar housing 30 (“blocking plate”) of Oh] and a busbar cover 14 [analogous to lid 35 (“cover”) of Oh]. Nakayama teaches that suitable materials for busbar holding plate 13 [analogous to bus bar housing 30 (“blocking plate”) of Oh] include synthetic resin having insulation properties in combination with mica as a filler (P45).
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 insulating and protecting material of the bus bar housing 30 (“blocking plate”) of Oh that of synthetic resin having insulation properties in combination with mica as a filler (P45) given the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 8, Oh teaches wherein the thermal insulation lid 35 (“thermal insulation cover”) comprises:
an upper end cover provided at an upper part of the battery pack at which the terminal unit 15 (16) and the bus bar housing 30 9(“blocking plate”) are located; and a side cover (see proejctions of lid 35) extending downwardly from a front edge of the upper end cover (illustrated in at least Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, modified Oh teaches wherein the thermal insulation lid 35 (“thermal insulation cover”) comprises a thermal insulation material (see rejection of claim 1, with Nakayama teaching thermally insulating synthetic resin materials including PP, PE, PBT, polyester, polyamide, etc. (P54).
Regarding claim 12, Oh teaches wherein the thermal insulation lid 35 (“thermal insulation cover”) is configured to entirely cover the connection busbar 21 (Figs. 2-3, P39). Note that Nakayama also teaches the analogous busbar cover 14 is configured to entirely cover its bus bar 13.
Regarding claim 16, Oh teaches wherein the thermal insulation lid 35 (“thermal insulation cover”) comprises:
an upper end cover covering the top surface, and a side cover (see projections of lid 35) covering a front surface of the first submodule (illustrated in at least Figs. 2-3).
13. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR 10-2019-0095045) (machine translation provided) in view of Loo (US 2012/0301765) and Nakayama et al. (US 2019/0051882) as applied to at least claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Jenkin et al. (US 2017/0201039) is maintained.
Regarding claim 11, modified Oh teaches wherein the thermal insulation lid 35 (“thermal insulation cover”) comprises a thermal insulation material (see rejection of claim 1, with Nakayama teaching thermally insulating synthetic resin materials including PP, PE, PBT, polyester, polyamide, etc. (P54). Modified Oh fails to explicitly teach that the thermal insulation material comprises ceramics or mica.
In the same field of endeavor, Jenkin teaches it is a known technique in the art of protecting electrical connectors to provide a protective coating of ceramic material to at least a portion of electrically insulating material made of synthetic materials including plastics (P13) in order to prevent water permeation into the electrically insulating material (abstract; P39).
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 thermal insulation lid 35 (“thermal insulation cover”) of modified Oh comprising a thermally and electrically insulating material of PP, PE, PET, etc. with a ceramic coating in order to provide the predictable results of preventing water permeation into the electrically insulating material to protect the electrical connector (abstract; P39).
Terminal Disclaimer
14. As previously noted, the Terminal Disclaimer filed on 8/14/2025 (statutory term of prior patent No. 11,177,530 B2) was approved.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claim 5, and thus dependent claim 6 are allowed. The prior Office Action included a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter not repeated here. Claim 5 was previously dependent; however, Applicant rewrote claim 5 to include the parent claim in an independent claim format such that it and its dependent claim 6 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image11.png
446
643
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In response: The terminal unit, connection busbar, and blocking plate of Rieder are not stacked in “the horizontal direction” as alleged. There are multiple interpretations of how the claims meet the defined vertical direction which can be at least two of the directions shown in Rieder depending upon the orientation of the components and/or general labeling thereof. This position taken by the Examiner was previously evidenced by Ohshiba et al. (US 2015/0280190) in the “Response to Arguments section,” the Ohshiba reference teaching that in the state of the prior art it is well known that the arrangement positions of the figures are not limiting (P49), and that the energy storage apparatus as a whole can be rotated 90° from the orientation shown on the page (P143).
As additional evidence of this position, the following references were cited:
Ardisana, II et al. (US 2019/0131664) (P19)-
In FIG. 1B, these opposite major faces are designated as a top face 124 and a bottom face 125. Note that in this description, reference to the top and bottom faces do not indicate a particular orientation or spatial attribute of the respective faces, but is instead used as arbitrary designations to distinguish between these two faces in description.
Werner et al. (US 2014/0065474) (P16)-
Note, however, that the orientation of coordinate axes x, y, and z is arbitrary, and length L and width W may be interchanged, such that L > W or W > L. The designation of sides 18A, 18B and ends 19A, 19B is also arbitrary, and they may be interchanged without loss of generality.
Accordingly, as properly interpreted consistent with how the prior art uses terminology such as a top surface, bottom surface, and a given direction, the Rieder reference has multiple interpretations that meet the claim. It is noted that even further interpretations exist given the use of “a terminal unit on a top surface of the first submodule” does not define whether this is directly on or indirectly on such that multiple interpretations exist of this limitation as well.
As one non-limiting interpretation of the subject matter of Rieder, the orientation of the components is not limited to that shown on the page; thus, the y-direction can be the claimed vertical direction, with one option for a top surface and a bottom surface annotated in the second module (corresponding surfaces of the first module being what is relied upon; the second module 14 only utilized because it is easier to see/annotate):
PNG
media_image4.png
596
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig. 2, the terminal unit (16 in the rejection of record but using 18 for demonstration purposes for the same reasons above), the connection bus bar 22, and the retaining clip 24 (“blocking plate”) are all stacked in the vertical direction (the y-direction):
PNG
media_image5.png
342
385
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, this one interpretation provides an interpretation of the claim that meets the most limited version of the options with respect to the indefinite clause (i.e., all three of the terminal unit, the connection busbar, and the blocking plate are stacked in the vertical direction).
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection maintained.
With respect to the Oh reference, Applicant alleges that the busbar housing 30 of Oh does not cover the terminal unit (15, 16) in the vertical direction. This is rebutted by Fig. 6 of Oh shown below with one non-limiting interpretation of the claimed vertical direction:
PNG
media_image10.png
271
481
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Lastly, it is noted that the conclusion section of the response filed notes that for any outstanding matters, the Examiner is requested to contact the Applicant’s representative; however, the Examiner does not find that an interview prior to the mailing of this Office Action would result in expediting the allowance of the application.
Conclusion
17. The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jung et al. (US 2021/0344074);
KR 10-2017-0028647 (cited in the IDS Filed 3/6/2024);
Jeon et al. (US 2019/0221817);
Nakayama et al. (US 10,950,915); and
Choi et al. (US 2022/0190404); Kim et al. (US 2024/0039126); Park et al. (US 2024/0014526); Han et al. (US 2023/0299411); Jung et al. (US 2023/0124214).
18. 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.
19. 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
1 The designation of “top” is arbitrary as is consistent with standard interpretation of the term in the state of the prior art. Thus, in the absence of “top” being defined relative to some other entity or entities, it can have many interpretations as is consistent with how such terms are utilized in the state of the prior art, and with the orientation shown on the page not being limiting.