DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 12-16 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 9/11/2025 is maintained. The amendment filed 1/29/2026 changing the limitation in claim 6 of “the through openings” to “a through openings” does not sufficiently clarify the claim, since “a” implies a singular opening, yet “openings” is pluralized. Applicant’s remarks filed 1/29/2026 state that claim 6, as amended, “consistently uses the same terminology as claim 5 and clearly identifies the through openings as the passage openings configured for the round cells” [Remarks, page 5]. However, the currently amended claim 6 does not use the same terminology as claim 5, and makes no reference to the ”passage openings” recited in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofer et al. (US 20150236315).
Regarding claim 1, Hofer teaches a module housing, or cell carriers (10, 20), of electrically insulating plastic material [0011, “In some embodiments, the two cell carriers as well as the cell fixture are of non-conductive material”, 0020, “In some embodiments, the two cell carriers 10 and 20 are made of a synthetic material, such as polyimide”], the module housing comprising:
a foam body, or cell fixture (30), comprising electrically insulating foam material [0020, “the cell fixture 30 is made of a foam, such as polyurethane”], the foam body having cylindrical receptacles configured for round cells [0007, “In some embodiments, the cells have elongated bodies, such as cylindrical round cells”, 0008, “the cells run through openings of a cell fixture”, 0009, “the material of the cell fixture may enclose every single cell”],
axial stops aligned with the receptacles and configured for cell cups of the round cells and recesses, or openings (11, 21), for positive poles of the round cells [Fig. 1, 0019, “the openings 11 and 21 of the two cell carriers 10 and 20 are closed at one side or provided with a reduced radius so that the cells 1 are held”]
Expanding on the axial stops, or openings, in Fig. 1 it can be seen that the openings (11) have a smaller diameter than the cell cups, or cells (1), configured to keep the cells in place while remaining open so that the cells can be electrically coupled with one another through those recesses [0022]. While Hofer does not specifically teach that the recesses are for positive poles of the cells, the limitation “recesses for positive poles of round cells” is a statement of intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (see MPEP 2144 II). Since Hofer teaches openings with a reduced radius on the outer ends of the housing, both poles of a round cell may be situated within the recesses, therefore Hofer teaches all structural limitations of the claim.
Further regarding claim 2, Hofer teaches the module housing according to claim 1, wherein a diameter of the recesses is smaller than a diameter of the cell cups [Fig. 1, 0019, “the openings 11 and 21 of the two cell carriers 10 and 20 are closed at one side or provided with a reduced radius so that the cells 1 are held”].
Further regarding claim 5, Hofer teaches the module housing according to claim 1, further comprising passage openings configured for the round cells and aligned with the receptacles. In Fig. 1, the bottom of the module housing, or cell carrier (20) must have passage openings disposed on the side facing the battery cells (1) in order for the cells to fit in the housing, in line with the receptacles in the foam body, or cell fixture (30). At the opposite end of the receptacle, on the outside of the top of the module housing, there is a stop (the reduced radius of opening 11 as described in the rejection for instant claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 20150236315) in view of Ahn et al. (US 20200227708).
Regarding claim 3, Hofer teaches the module housing according to claim 1, as described previously in the rejection for instant claim 1. Hofer does not specifically teach a module housing wherein the diameter of recesses is larger than a diameter of the cell cups, and where, per recess, a plurality of stops protrude into the recess and a clearance between the stops is smaller than the diameter of the cell cups.
Ahn teaches analogous art of a battery module holding a plurality of cylindrical battery cells [Abstract], the battery module including an electric insulating material [0071, “the upper case 210A may include an electric insulating material”]. Fig. 10, shows a plurality of stops, or stoppers (217), which support the round cells [0130, “the stopper 217 may be configured to support at least one region of the upper surface or lower surface of the cylindrical battery cell 100”]. Ahn teaches that the stops protrude into a recess [Fig. 10, 0130, “a stopper 217 protruding in a direction where the electrode terminal 111 of the cylindrical battery cell 100 is positioned”]. Fig 11 shows that the plurality of stops are fixed right outside of second electrode terminal (111b), but their points protrude toward the cell (100) and on top of it, therefore the clearance between the stops is smaller than the diameter of the cells. Furthermore, Ahn teaches that the second electrode terminal (111b) is formed on the circular outer peripheral portion of the cell cup, or battery can (120). Since the stops are fixed on an edge right outside of the second electrode terminal [Figs. 10-11], which is on the outside of the cell cup, the recess formed under the stops has a larger diameter than the diameter of the cell cups.
Ahn discloses that the stops effectively prevent the displacement of the battery cells [0133]. Ahn also discloses that a wire type bus bar which connects the electrode terminals of the cells can extend between the stops, therefore if the wire type bus bar is disconnected from the electrode terminals, the stops can prevent the wire type bus bar from being fully displaced, which makes the battery module more durable [0135]. Preventing the displacement of the wire type bus bar, or any electrical connector used to connect cells in parallel, could also prevent short circuits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial stops taught by Hofer to use the plurality of stops taught by Ahn in order to effectively prevent the displacement of the cells or connectors used to connect the cells and to prevent short circuiting. Furthermore, the reduced radius openings of Hofer and the stops of Ahn are both elements intended to hold the cells within their respective receptacles. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known stop element of Ahn for that of Hofer and the results of the substitution, i.e. keeping the cells within their receptacles, would have been predictable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 20150236315) in view of Murakami et al. (US 20170301964).
Regarding claim 4, Hofer teaches the module housing according to claim 1, as described previously in the rejection for instant claim 1. Hofer does not specifically teach the receptacles having a larger diameter than the diameter of the cell cups, the foam body having a plurality of squeeze ribs extending axially along the receptacle per receptacle.
Murakami teaches analogous art of a battery pack made of heat dissipating material with receptacles, or insertion holes (5), that hold round cells, or battery cells (1) [0019]. Murakami teaches that the receptacles have an elastic cylinder (7) with squeeze ribs, or elastic projections (8), inside the receptacle that allows for deformation [Figs. 2-3, 5, 0071, “Thermally-conductive insulating rubber 4 is disposed on the inner surfaces of insertion holes 5, and a plurality of elastic cylinders 7 elastically pressed on the peripheries of battery cells 1 are interconnected via the ends of insertion holes 5”, “each elastic cylinder 7 includes a plurality of elastic projections 8 that project on its inner surface and are elastically pressed on the whole periphery of battery cell 1”]. For the round cells to fit into the receptacles, the receptacles must necessarily have a diameter greater than the diameter of the cell cups. Murakami teaches that when the squeeze ribs are added into the receptacle, the inner shape is then 0.05-10% smaller than the outer shape of the cell cup, or battery cell [0071]. Therefore, the clearance of the squeeze ribs would be less than the diameter of the cell cups.
Murakami discloses that the dimensions of round cells may vary slightly due to errors in the manufacturing process, therefore it is advantageous to have receptacles which can accommodate dimension errors in order to ensure that every cell fits in the receptacle smoothly [0008, “the cylindrical battery cells have a dimension error in a manufacturing process, and the insertion holes in the heat dissipating material also have a dimension error in the manufacturing process, 0016, “the battery cells can be smoothly inserted into fixed positions in the heat dissipating holder”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receptacles taught by Hofer to have a larger diameter and squeeze ribs as taught by Murakami, in order to account for inevitable variations in round cell dimensions when fixing the cells in place.
Claims 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 20150236315) in view of DE 202018106375 (referring to English translation thereof which is provided, herein referred to as DE '375).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in light of 112(b) issues described previously, Hofer teaches the module housing according to claim 1. Hofer also teaches two housing halves, or two cell carriers (10, 20), wherein the foam body, or cell fixture (30) is arranged between the housing halves [Fig. 1, 0009, “the cell fixture is then compressed by means of the two cell carriers by pressing the cell carriers together”]. Hofer does not specifically teach that in each housing half the stops and through openings are arranged in rows next to each other, wherein the rows of stops and through openings alternate.
DE '375 teaches analogous art of a module housing (14) with through openings enclosing round cells [0018, “each of which has a module housing with respective through-openings enclosing the round cells”]. The housing has cylindrical through openings (34) arranged in rows next to each other [Fig. 6, 0033]. The housing also has stops, or insulators (36) with recesses (38) and cell connectors (18), arranged in rows next to each other [Fig. 8, 0035]. Fig. 8 shows that the rows of through openings, where negative poles (20) of the cells are disposed, and the rows of stops, where positive poles (22) of the cells are disposed, alternate.
DE '375 discloses that in order to achieve the necessary power requirements, battery cells are connected in different configurations, both in parallel and in series [0002, “The individual battery cells are usually connected in different configurations, partly in parallel and partly in series, depending on the power requirements”]. To achieve high voltage, cells must be connected in series with one another, and to increase capacity, cells must be connected in parallel [0002]. By alternating the through openings and stops in rows, and thus alternating the negative poles and positive poles, the cells can be connected in both series and parallel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module housing taught by Hofer with the alternating rows of stops and through openings taught by DE '375 in order to maximize the power and capacity of a battery by allowing for connections between cells in both parallel and series.
Regarding claim 8, Hofer teaches a battery module, or cell block [0008, “The cell block includes a first cell carrier and a second cell carrier”], comprising at least one module housing, or cell carriers (10, 20), of electrically insulating plastic material [0011, “In some embodiments, the two cell carriers as well as the cell fixture are of non-conductive material”, 0020, “In some embodiments, the two cell carriers 10 and 20 are made of a synthetic material, such as polyimide”], the module housing having:
a foam body, or cell fixture (30), comprising electrically insulating foam material [0020, “the cell fixture 30 is made of a foam, such as polyurethane”], the foam body having cylindrical receptacles configured for round cells [0007, “In some embodiments, the cells have elongated bodies, such as cylindrical round cells”, 0008, “the cells run through openings of a cell fixture”, 0009, “the material of the cell fixture may enclose every single cell”];
axial stops aligned with the receptacles and configured for cell cups of the round cells and recesses, or openings (11, 21), for positive poles of the round cells [Fig. 1, 0019, “the openings 11 and 21 of the two cell carriers 10 and 20 are closed at one side or provided with a reduced radius so that the cells 1 are held”] wherein;
one round cell is arranged in the foam body for each receptacle [Fig. 1, there is 1 round cell (1) per receptacle, or opening (31), in the foam body]; and
cell cups of the round cells are arranged to bear against an inner side of the stops and positive poles of the round cells are arranged in the recesses [Fig. 1, 0019, “the openings 11 and 21 of the two cell carriers 10 and 20 are closed at one side or provided with a reduced radius so that the cells 1 are held by the cell carriers”, the openings allow the positive poles to be arranged in the recesses, explained in detail below].
Expanding on the axial stops, or openings, in Fig. 1 it can be seen that the openings (11) have a smaller diameter than the cell cups, or cells (1), configured to keep the cells in place while remaining open so that the cells can be electrically coupled with one another through those recesses [0022]. While Hofer does not specifically teach that the recesses are for positive poles of the cells, the limitation “recesses for positive poles of round cells” is a statement of intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (see MPEP 2144 II). Since Hofer teaches openings with a reduced radius on the outer ends of the housing, both poles of a round cell may be situated within the recesses, therefore Hofer teaches all structural limitations of the claim. Hofer does not teach cell connectors configured to be electrically conductively connected to the positive poles.
DE '375 teaches analogous art of a module housing (14) with through openings enclosing round cells [0018, “each of which has a module housing with respective through-openings enclosing the round cells”]. DE '375 also teaches cell connectors (18), configured to electrically conductively connect the positive poles (22) of the round cells [Fig. 2, 0028,” The cell connector 18 - and also the other cell connectors 18 of the battery 10 - have electrically conductive contact elements 24 for connecting pairwise end-to-end two of the round cells 16 in series.
The contact elements 24 also have respective bottom-side contact surfaces, not further described here, for establishing a material connection with the respective positive poles 22 of the round cells 16”]. The cell connectors are arranged to abut on an outer side of stops, or insulators (36), [Figs. 8-9, 0019, “the module housings each have an insulator with recesses for respective cell caps of the round cells, on which the cell connectors are arranged”]. Since the stops are arranged between the round cells and the cell connectors, the cell connectors are electrically insulated by these stops from the cell cups.
DE ‘375 discloses that to achieve high capacity in a battery pack, it is advantageous to connect cells both in series and in parallel [0002, “The individual battery cells are usually connected in different configurations, partly in parallel and partly in series, depending on the power requirements”]. Furthermore, DE ‘375 discloses that if battery modules are not connected precisely via the cell connectors, or if the cell connectors themselves, are damaged, that could cause short-circuiting, leading to thermal runaway, and that providing stops, or insulators, can prevent said short-circuiting [0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery module taught by Hofer with the cell connectors and stops taught by DE ‘375, in order to increase the power and capacity of the battery module by connecting cells in parallel, as well as to prevent short-circuiting.
Regarding claim 12, Hofer teaches the module housing according to claim 1. Hofer does not specifically teach the stops being arranged to fully cover a radial shoulder of the cell cup in a contact region with the cell connector.
DE '375 teaches analogous art of a module housing (14) with through openings enclosing round cells [0018, “each of which has a module housing with respective through-openings enclosing the round cells”]. DE '375 also teaches cell connectors (18), configured to electrically conductively connect the positive poles (22) of the round cells [Fig. 2, 0028,” The cell connector 18 - and also the other cell connectors 18 of the battery 10 - have electrically conductive contact elements 24 for connecting pairwise end-to-end two of the round cells 16 in series. The cell connectors are arranged to abut on an outer side of stops, or insulators (36), [Figs. 8-9, 0019, “the module housings each have an insulator with recesses for respective cell caps of the round cells, on which the cell connectors are arranged”]. Since the insulators have a recess with a diameter smaller than that of the round cells, the insulators cover a radial outer shoulder of the cell cup [0019, “Preferably, the recesses of the insulator have a smaller diameter than the round cells, so that the recesses automatically provide an axial stop for the respective round cells”]. Since the insulators are arranged between the round cells and the cell connectors, the cell connectors are electrically insulated by these insulators in the contact regions from the cell cups.
DE ‘375 discloses that to achieve high capacity in a battery pack, it is advantageous to connect cells both in series and in parallel [0002]. DE ‘375 discloses that if battery modules are not connected precisely via the cell connectors, or if the cell connectors themselves are damaged, that could cause short-circuiting, leading to thermal runaway, and that providing stops, or insulators, can prevent said short-circuiting [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery module taught by Hofer with the cell connectors and insulating stops covering a radial shoulder of the cell cup in the contact regions taught by DE ‘375, in order to increase the power and capacity of the battery module by connecting cells in parallel while preventing short-circuiting and thermal runaway.
Regarding claim 13, Hofer teaches the module housing according to claim 1. While Hofer does not specifically teach that the recesses are dimensioned to receive only the positive poles and to prevent insertion of the cell cups in the recesses, the reduced radius taught by Hofer teaches the structural limitations necessary to prevent the cell cups from being inserted in the recess.
Furthermore, DE '375 teaches insulators arranged at the end of each battery cells between the cell and a cell connector, comprising a recess with a smaller diameter than the round cell to prevent insertion of the cell cup into the recesses [0019, “Preferably, the recesses of the insulator have a smaller diameter than the round cells, so that the recesses automatically provide an axial stop for the respective round cells”]. DE ‘375 also teaches that the recesses are meant for the respective positive poles of the round cells [0035, “The insulators 36 have respective recesses 38 for the respective positive poles 22 of the round cells 16”].
DE’375 teaches that by providing the insulators with the recesses provided for the positive poles, short circuits between individual cells can be avoided when connecting one battery module to another [0036, “0 By providing the insulators 36 and the correspondingly recessed arrangement of the positive poles 22 of the round cells 16, short circuits between the individual round cells 16 can be effectively avoided during the plugging together of the battery modules 12”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery module taught by Hofer with the insulating stops and recesses taught by DE ‘375, in order prevent short-circuiting of the round cells during connection to other battery modules.
Regarding claim 15, Hofer, modified by DE’375, teaches the module housing according to claim 8.
DE ‘375 teaches that the cell connectors comprise spring arms (“contact springs) meant to establish a force-fitting connection with a respective cell cup of the round cells [0006]. DE ‘375 further discloses that the spring arms spread outwards and then enclose the round cells when receiving the cell cups [0032, “5 The spring arms 26 spread outwards a little and then enclose the round cells 16 in the area of the negative poles 20 in a force-fitting manner”]. Furthermore, the use of the word “spring” means that the component will elastically deform.
DE ‘375 teaches that the spring arms allow for simple connection of another round cell or module into the cell connectors, and that the cell cups are forcefully held [0007, “6 Then another round cell with its cell cup can simply be inserted between the spring arms, as a result of which the cell cup of the round cell, for example the negative pole of the round cell, is held force-fitting between the spring arms”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery module taught by modified Hofer with the spring arms taught by DE ‘375, in order to provide a simple and secure connection of multiple battery modules.
Regarding claim 16, Hofer, modified by DE ‘375 teaches the module housing according to claim 8.
DE ‘375 discloses that the spring arms of the cell connectors are located directly above the insulators, or stops [Figs. 8-9]. While DE ‘375 does not specifically teach minimal spacing in between the spring arm and stop, in order for the cell connector to reliably contact the positive pole of the round cell, the cell connectors must be provided close to the positive poles and therefore the insulators [0019, “t the module housings each have an insulator with recesses for respective cell caps of the round cells, on which the cell connectors are arranged and are connected with their raised bottom-side contact surfaces to the cell caps of the round cells arranged set back in the insulator”]. Furthermore, minimizing the space between the spring arms and stops would reduce the overall space needed for the battery module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery module taught by modified Hofer with the spring arms arranged directly above the stops taught by DE ‘375 with minimal spacing between the spring arms and the stops, in order to maintain reliable connections and minimize the overall space of the battery module.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 20150236315) in view of Baumgärtner et al. (DE 102018009445, referring to English translation thereof which is provided).
Regarding claim 7, Hofer teaches the module housing as described in the previous rejection for instant claim 1. Hofer does not specifically teach a connecting contour on at least one housing side.
Baumgärtner teaches analogous art of a battery module made of plastic foam with cylindrical receptacles, or round recesses, for holding battery cells [Fig. 1, 0004]. Baumgärtner also teaches connecting contours, or tenon (5), with offset rectangular elevations and recesses on the outside of the module to connect additional battery modules [Fig.1, Fig. 7, 0006, “the outer surfaces of the modules are provided with offset rectangular elevations and recesses into which the adjacent modules can be inserted with a form-fitting fit”].
Baumgärtner discloses that having connecting contours disposed on the sides of the battery module makes plugging modules into each other to form a larger battery pack easier [0003, “The modules are designed like “Lego bricks” so that they can be easily plugged together to form battery packs”]. Having connecting contours on the sides on the housing also makes it easier to customize the size of the battery pack according to the amount of power needed for different applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the module housing taught by Hofer by adding the connecting contours taught by Baumgärtner, in order to make connection to other module housings easier and provide customization so that the resulting battery modules can be used for many different needs and applications.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 20150236315) in view of DE '375 (DE 202018106375) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ahn (US 20200227708)
Regarding claim 9, Hofer, modified by DE ‘375, teaches the battery module of claim 8, as described in the previous rejection for instant claim 8. DE ‘375 further teaches that the cell connectors (18) have contact springs, or spring arms (26), arranged to align in a crown shape on a side facing away from the round cells [Figs. 4-5, the spring arms are facing away from the positive pole (22) which they are connected to, allowing the negative pole of another cell to be connected to the cell connector in series]. Stops, or insulators (36), are arranged between the cell connectors which have the contact springs and the cell cup [Figs. 8-9, 0019, “the module housings each have an insulator with recesses for respective cell caps of the round cells, on which the cell connectors are arranged”].
Neither Hofer nor DE’375 teach the diameter of the recesses being larger than a diameter of the cell cups, and where, per recess, a plurality of stops protrude into the recess and a clearance between the stops is smaller than the diameter of the cell cups.
Ahn teaches analogous art of a battery module holding a plurality of cylindrical battery cells [Abstract], the battery module including an electric insulating material [0071, “the upper case 210A may include an electric insulating material”]. Fig. 10, shows a plurality of stops, or stoppers (217), which support the round cells [0130, “the stopper 217 may be configured to support at least one region of the upper surface or lower surface of the cylindrical battery cell 100”]. Ahn teaches that the stops protrude into a recess [Fig. 10, 0130, “a stopper 217 protruding in a direction where the electrode terminal 111 of the cylindrical battery cell 100 is positioned”]. Fig 11 shows that the plurality of stops are fixed right outside of second electrode terminal (111b), but their points protrude toward the cell (100) and on top of it, therefore the clearance between the stops is smaller than the diameter of the cells. Furthermore, Ahn teaches that the second electrode terminal (111b) is formed on the circular outer peripheral portion of the cell cup, or battery can (120). Since the stops are fixed on an edge right outside of the second electrode terminal [Figs. 10-11], which is on the outside of the cell cup, the recess formed under the stops has a larger diameter than the diameter of the cell cups.
Ahn discloses that the stops effectively prevent the displacement of the battery cells [0133]. Having a plurality of stops spaced out around each recess also decreases the amount of material needed to form the stops as opposed to having one continuous stop around the entire recess.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module taught by Hofer and DE ‘375 to include a recess with a diameter larger than that of the cell cups with a plurality of stops protruding into the recess in order to effectively keep the cells and place and reduce the material needed for the apparatus. Furthermore, the reduced radius openings of Hofer and the stops of Ahn are both elements intended to hold the cells within their respective receptacles. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known stop element of Ahn for that of Hofer and the results of the substitution, i.e. keeping the cells within their receptacles, would have been predictable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 20150236315) in view of DE '375 (DE 202018106375) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (CN 201514969, referring to Examiner-provided English translation thereof, hereinafter "Cheng").
Regarding claim 14, Hofer, as modified by DE ‘375, teaches the battery module of claim 8, as described in the rejection for instant claim 8.
DE ‘375 teaches a bottom-side contact surface (“embossment”) in the region configured to align with the positive poles of the round cells fixed to the positive poles by welding [0007, “only the bottom contact surface of one of the contact elements must be firmly bonded to a respective cell cap of the round cells, for example by laser welding or the like”].
DE ’375 teaches that since the bottom-contact surface is raised, or embossed, away from the direction of the spring arms, the connectors can provide spatial insulation distance between the bottom contact surface and the spring arms [0012]. Furthermore, by welding the bottom contact surface to the positive pole, connection can be easily and reliably secured [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module taught by modified Hofer to include an embossment in the cell connector welded to the positive poles as taught by DE ‘375, in order to provide spatial insulation distance between the bottom contact surface and the spring arms and easy and reliable connection.
Cheng teaches analogous art of a battery pack in which a plurality of single cells are connected in series and parallel [0002]. Cheng further teaches a conductive plate comprising elastic tongues (“cell connectors”) that contact the poles of the battery cells, disposed on the same side of a battery pack [0007, “a conductive plate is provided in the middle of two groups of battery packs connected in series, and elastic tongues are provided on the conductive plate, the number of which is equal to the number of batteries connected in parallel. The upper side of each elastic tongue can contact the negative electrode of a battery, and the lower side can contact the positive electrode of another battery”]. The conductive plate resides between two battery packs stacked axially [Fig. 1].
The configuration taught by Cheng allows for the upper and lower batteries to be connected both in series and in parallel, improving the working efficiency of the assembled battery pack [0010, “Each layer of conductive plates not only connects the upper and lower batteries in series, but also connects all the batteries in the layer in parallel, thereby improving the working efficiency of the assembled battery pack”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module taught by modified Hofer to have all the cell connectors on the same side as taught by Cheng, in order to improve the working efficiency of the assembled battery module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of instant claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102, in response to applicant's argument that Hofer fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selective exposure of one terminal while structurally shielding the other, recesses that are structurally dedicated to receiving only the positive poles, directional insertion, a stop that simultaneously performs axial positioning and electrical insulation, insulation of a cell connector from a cell cup, defined air and creepage distances, structure intended to prevent short circuits through integrated housing geometry, integrated electrical insulation function) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instant claims 1, 2, and 5 do not recite that the recesses may only receive the positive poles of the round cells. The claim language utilizes the transitional phrase “comprising”, which is “open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements” [see MPEP 2111.03(I)]. Furthermore, the claims do not recite that the axial stops perform an electrical insulation function meant to electrically isolate the cell cup.
In response to applicant's argument that Hofer does not disclose axial stops configured to bear against the cell cups as defined stop surfaces that determine the axial end position of the round cells [Remarks, page 6], it is noted that Hofer teaches that the reduced radius openings prevent cells from sliding through the openings [Hofer, 0019]. In order to prevent the cells from sliding through the openings, the reduced radius openings must bear against the outermost periphery of the cells to determine their axial end position. Paragraph [0012] of the published instant application discloses that the cell cup of a round cell is a feature that “encloses a roll of several electrically effective layers”, or, in other words, the outermost peripheral layer of the round cells.
Thus, the arguments are not considered persuasive and the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5 are maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selective terminal exposure, recess structurally dedicated to receiving only the positive pole) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instant claim 1 does not recite that the recesses may only receive the positive poles of the round cells. The claim language utilizes the transitional phrase “comprising”, which is “open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements” [see MPEP 2111.03(I)].
In response to applicant's argument that Hofer’s fixation concept teaches away from the claimed subject matter because Hofer “avoids defined axial stop geometry and relies instead on compression between opposing carriers” [Remarks, page 9], it is noted that Hofer does disclose axial stop geometry in the form of the reduced radius openings preventing the cells from sliding through the openings (in an axial direction) [Hofer, 0019]. Furthermore, simply because Hofer teaches compression between opposing carriers as one of the ways in which the cells are held in the carrier, does not mean that Hofer teaches away from the use of axial stop geometry, which Hofer itself also uses to hold the cells in place. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments [see MPEP 2123(II)].
Thus, the arguments are not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that importing Ahn's stoppers into Hofer would not yield the claimed geometry, 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). As described in the rejection of instant claim 3, both Hofer and Ahn teach elements intended to hold the cells within their respective receptacles (Hofer’s reduced radius openings and Ahn stoppers), therefore It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the known stop element of Ahn for that of Hofer and the results of the substitution, i.e. keeping the cells within their receptacles, would have been predictable.
Thus, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 3 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., air gaps, creepage distances, and terminal insulation) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As described in the rejection of instant claim 4, Murakami discloses that the dimensions of round cells may vary slightly due to errors in the manufacturing process, therefore it is advantageous to have receptacles which can accommodate dimension errors in order to ensure that every cell fits in the receptacle smoothly [0008, 0016]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receptacles taught by Hofer to have a larger diameter and squeeze ribs as taught by Murakami, in order to account for inevitable variations in round cell dimensions when fixing the cells in place.
Thus, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 4 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., integrated foam-and-stop housing, alternating rows formed directly by the housing halves themselves) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Neither claim 6, nor claims 1 and 5, upon which claim 6 is dependent, recite that the axial stops and foam body are integrally provided.
In response to applicant's argument that combining Hofer with DE '375 would require abandoning Hofer's compression-based fixation, 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).
Thus, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 6 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., integrated insulation without separate insulating washers) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 8 recites the limitation “the foam body having … axial stops” (examiner emphasis added), but does not specifically recite that the housing is provided integrally with the axial stops.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, even if claim 8 were to specifically recite housing-integrated insulation, making separate pieces integral would have been obvious since “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." [In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)].
Furthermore, DE ‘375 does not teach away nor discourage integrating the insulating function into the housing itself. Paragraph [0019] of DE ‘375 discloses in fact discloses: “[b]ecause the module housing preferably themselves contain the insulator, it does not have to be laboriously installed inside the battery” (examiner emphasis added).
Thus, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 8 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that “DE ‘375’s teaching presupposes the presence of spring-arm connectors that grip the cell cup (DE ‘375, paragraph [0006]), which is structurally incompatible with the claimed design that isolates the cell cup from the connector” [Remarks, page 13], it is noted that, in DE ‘375, the cell cup which the spring-arm connectors grip is not the same cell cup as the one being electrically insulated from the connector by the axial stops. The cell cup which is gripped by the spring-arm connectors is a cell cup from a separate module housing which is connected to the first module housing upon axial stacking of the module housings [0022, “the manufactured battery modules are plugged together one after the other and that the respective cell cups of the round cells are plugged between the respective spring arms of the contact elements on the cell connectors arranged in the adjacent battery modules”]. As described in the rejection of instant claim 12, DE ‘375 does teach insulators covering a radial outer shoulder of the cell cup [0019]. Since the insulators are arranged between the round cells and the cell connectors, the cell connectors are electrically insulated by these insulators in the contact regions from the cell cups.
Thus, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 12 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dimensional selectivity achieved by the housing structure aligned with the receptacle) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instant claims 1 and 13 do not specifically recite the axial stops being provided integrally with the housing.
Thus, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 13 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that “In DE’375, the spring arms deliberately contact the cell cup to establish a force-fitting connection” which is ”the opposite of the claimed configuration, in which the stop prevents the connector contact with the cell cup” [Remarks, page 14], it is noted that, in DE ‘375, the cell cup in contact with the spring-arm connectors is not the same cell cup as the one being electrically insulated from the connector by the axial stops. The cell cup which is gripped by the spring-arm connectors is a cell cup from a separate module housing which is connected to the first module housing upon axial stacking of the module housings [0022, “the manufactured battery modules are plugged together one after the other and that the respective cell cups of the round cells are plugged between the respective spring arms of the contact elements on the cell connectors arranged in the adjacent battery modules”]. As described in the rejection of instant claim 12, DE ‘375 does teach insulators covering a radial outer shoulder of the cell cup [0019]. Since the insulators are arranged between the round cells and the cell connectors, the cell connectors are electrically insulated by these insulators in the contact regions from the cell cups.
Thus, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 15 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of instant claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in response to applicant's argument that the combination of DE '375 and Hofer would require a complete redesign of both Hofer's fixation system and DE '375's connector philosophy, 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).
Thus, the argument is not considered persuasive and the rejection of claim 16 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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 at (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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729