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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/04/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 and 3-12 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 has been amended to include the limitations “and wherein the nut insertion chamber is configured such that when a bolt is inserted into a screw hole extending within the nut with a longitudinal axis of the bolt not being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the screw hole, the nut is configured to self-align with the bolt by the nut pushing the second end of the protrusion so that the longitudinal axis of the screw hole becomes aligned with the longitudinal axis of the bolt.”
The instant specification and/or drawings do not provide an explicit discussion on how the nut is configured to “self-align” with the bolt. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the nut is configured to self-align with the protrusion (of the nut insertion chamber). However, any nut with freedom of motion (in the nut insertion chamber) such that it can push the protrusions (of the nut insertion chamber) to become aligned with a bolt will read on the claim limitations until further clarification is provided. Failure to clarify/confirm the scope of the 112b may result in a rejection of the limitation under 35 USC § 112.
Claims 3-12 are rejected as dependents of 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Kume (US 20130017436 A1) and in view of Kim (WO 2019107938 A1) and Ito (JP 2018170433 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kume discloses a battery module (2) comprising: a cell (1) assembly including at least one battery cell (1) and an electrode lead connected (21) to the at least one battery cell (fig. 2); a bus bar (6) assembly including a terminal bus bar (fig. 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 14 6a, 6b, 6d, 6e,) electrically connected to the electrode lead of the cell assembly [0048], and a bus bar frame covering the cell assembly on at least one side thereof [0014]; an insulating frame covering an outside of the bus bar assembly ([0066], fig. 3, 17, examiner is interpreting “bus bar assembly” to include the following: bus-bar (6), connecting terminal (6a), through-holes (6b), extension connector (23), nut (24), and bolt (25). As such, an insulating frame can be found on the outside of the bus-bar assembly via the plastic end plate (4a) and the housing unit (9)); and a nut (24) adjacent to the terminal bus bar (fig. 17 and 18) and mounted in a nut insertion chamber.
Kume discloses that the nut is placed into the endplate via insertion molding. But is silent to 1) a nut insertion chamber with protrusions, 2) the protrusion being cantilevered and particulars thereof, and 3) the nut being configured to self-align with the bolt by the nut pushing the second end of the protrusion so that the longitudinal axis of the screw hole becomes aligned with the longitudinal axis of the bolt.
In regards to 1), Kim discloses the nut insertion chamber (120, 125) ([0106-0130], fig. 4-7 and 9, Kim furthermore, 121 is a slide that allows one to easily insert and if need be, remove the nut from the chamber) defining a space inside of the insulating frame (fig. 4-7 and 9, Kume discloses that the nut (24) is housed inside of the endplate. Specifically endplate 4 A which is made of an insulating material, specifically a plastic body. As a result, examiner is interpreting this as the nut in a nut insertion chamber defining a space inside of the insulating frame), the nut (135, 135A) has a width smaller than a width of the nut insertion chamber (120, 125) in right and left directions of the nut insertion chamber ([0127-0131], fig. 5-9, Kim), so that the nut has freedom of motion (G) within the nut insertion chamber in the left and right directions ([0142 - 0144], fig. 9, Kim), and when the nut moves, the protrusion (120a) is configured to deflect in an outside direction of the nut insertion chamber [0127, Kim], wherein the insulating frame has two fixing protrusion (125T) that protrudes from a side wall of the nut insertion chamber and contacts the nut and prevents the nut from moving in the direction where it was inserted(0135-0137, fig. 9, Kim shows the nut (135) is secured in the insertion chamber (120, 125), the examiner is interpreting the wall of the nut insertion chamber to be equivalent to the protrusion claimed by the applicant).
In regards to 3), Kim discloses a nut insertion chamber (120, 125) configured such that when a bolt is inserted into a screw hole extending within the nut with a longitudinal axis of the bolt not being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the screw hole [0141¸Kim], the nut is configured to align (135C) with the bolt [0140-0142, Kim] by the nut pushing the second end of the protrusion [0135-0137, Kim] so that the longitudinal axis of the screw hole becomes aligned with the longitudinal axis of the bolt [0140-0142, Kim].
Kim’s description of the protrusions (125T) fixing the nut in place and design (135C) and function of the nut reads on the applicant’s claim limitation.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the arts would find it obvious to modify the end plate on Kume’s battery module and include the opening (120) and slide (121) of the bus-bar module disclosed by Kim. This is because the bus-bar module disclosed by Kim has a nut insertion chamber (120, 125) that allows one to physically insert the nut instead of insertion molding the nut, along with the two fixing protrusions (125T) that prevent the nut from moving in the direction that it was inserted. As such this simplifies the manufacturing process, shortening the manufacturing time, and reducing the production cost. [0101, 0110, 0114]. Furthermore, it is understood that because of the slide moving part (121) the nut can be inserted [0104], while not stated it would be obvious that the nut can also be removed as needed which would simplify any needed repairs.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the arts would find it obvious to modify Kume such that the nut comprised a camfer section like that noted in Kim [(135C) fig. 9]. Doing so would allow for one to transmit a moving force to the nut to correct the position of the nut according to the position of the terminal bolt [0141, Kim].
Kume is further silent to the protrusion being cantilevered and particulars thereof.
In regards to 2), Ito discloses a screw fixing structure of a lid and main body of a security box [abstract, 0006, Ito].
The work of Ito and Kume as modified above are analogous as all disclose methods for securing a first object (e.g. terminal bus bar or lid) to the main body of a box (one would understand that a “box” also includes any sort of casing or frame for a container). Both contain a protrusion jutting out from the side of a nut insertion chamber (125T, Kim; 110, Ito) that allow for the nut to go in but inhibits it from moving out of the insertion direction. Thus allowing for the nut to be secured in place and prevent the nut from moving in the direction where it was inputted.
One of ordinary skill within the arts would understand that the screw fixing structure of Ito may be applied to any general container and is not limited to just a security box.
A first end of the protrusion (112) is connected to the side wall (110) [0019, 0022-0026, fig. 5-12, Ito], and the protrusion is cantilevered [0019, 0022-0026, fig. 5-12, Ito depiction of the protrusion (112) extends horizontally and is supported only at one end. This reads on the claim limitation of “cantilevered”], such that when the nut moves [0019, 0022-0026, Ito], a second end of the protrusion opposite the first end is configured to deflect in an outside direction of the nut insertion chamber relative to the side wall [0019, 0022-0026, Ito], the outside direction being perpendicular to the left and right directions [0019, 0022-0026, Ito], such that the nut has freedom of motion within the nut insertion chamber in the outside direction when the nut is pressed against the second end of the protrusion [0019, 0022-0026, Ito].
Ito describes that the nut is able to be inserted into the accommodation space (150, “nut insertion chamber”) and that the fixing portions (110) may be expanded in the x direction (“left and right direction”) allowing for the nut to be inserted. However, the protrusions prevent the nut from moving in a z direction (“perpendicular to the left and right directions”). The nut has freedom of motion within the insurrection chamber when a force is applied to the nut such that it presses against the second end of the protrusion.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Kume such that the protrusion was utilized as described by Ito. Doing so would allow for the nut to be inserted into the nut insertion chamber but prevent it from easily being removed unless a force is applied to remove the nut [0022, Ito].
Regarding claim 3, Kume as modified above discloses the battery module, wherein: the nut has a jaw portion at a lower portion (fig. 8, 135a, Kim) thereof that protrudes toward the side wall of the nut insertion chamber from a main body of the nut (fig. 9, Kim), and the jaw portion interferes with the protrusion in a vertical direction (fig. 9, (135A, 135B), Kim), thereby limiting movement of the nut in the vertical direction (examiner notes that nut insertion hole 125 has a lip that resides about 135A and prevents the nut from moving in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 4, Kume discloses the battery module, wherein: the terminal bus bar has a fastening hole (6b) defined therein [fig. 17], and the nut (24) is mounted in the nut insertion chamber so that a screw hole defined within the nut at least partially overlaps the fastening hole in left and right directions of the nut insertion chamber [fig. 17, shows that the fastening hole (6b) has a slightly wider gap than the screw hole defined within the nut. As a result, the screw hole within the nut does overlap with the fastening hole].
Regarding claim 5, Kume as modified above discloses the battery module, wherein: the protrusion of the insulating frame comprises an inclined surface connected to the side wall of the nut insertion chamber at an upper portion of the protrusion [0122-0123, Kim].
Regarding claim 6, Kume as modified above the battery module, wherein: the nut insertion chamber (105) and the protrusion (112) are integrally formed together during an injection process of the insulating frame [fig. 5-12, Ito depicts the protrusions as being integral with the side wall (110) of the nut insertion chamber.]
The claim of “are integrally formed together during an injection process of the insulating frame” is a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.", see MPEP 2113. The use of an injection process to make the protrusion integral with the nut insertion chamber imparts a final product of a nut insertion chamber with a protrusion. Ito describes and depicts a nut insertion chamber (105) with a protrusion (112) that is integrally formed with the side wall of the chamber.
Regarding claim 7, Kume discloses the battery module, wherein: the protrusion (112) of the insulating frame is extends from the side wall (110) of the nut insertion chamber (105) [fig. 5-12, Ito]. In modified Kume the nut insertion chamber (120, 125) adjacent to the bus bar (150) [fig. 2, 4-5, Kim].
Regarding claim 8, Kume discloses the battery module, wherein: the protrusion of the insulating frame extends from a branch portion of the insulating frame that protrudes from an upper portion of the side wall of the nut insertion chamber towards a side surface of the insulating frame and extends downward from the upper portion of the side wall [fig. 5, Ito depicts the protrusion (112) where is extends from a side wall (110,) and extends from an “upper” downward to a “lower” portion of the side wall.]
Regarding claim 9, Kume discloses a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery modules (fig. 2-3, (2)) and a bolt (fig. 2-3, 25) that extends through a fastening hole of the terminal bus bar (fig. 2-5, 6, 6B) of one of the battery modules and is screw coupled to a screw hole of the nut of the one of the battery modules [0042].
Regarding claim 10, Kume discloses the battery pack, further comprising a terminal connection structure having an inter-module bus bar (fig. 2-3, (6)) that connects the terminal bus bars of adjacent ones of the battery modules (fig. 2-3), wherein the bolt (25) extends through the inter-module bus bar (6) and is coupled to the nut (24) of the one of the battery modules [0063, fig. 17].
Regarding claim 11, Kume discloses the battery pack, wherein: the bolt extends through the nut of the one of the battery modules and is fixed to the insulating frame of the one of the battery modules (fig. 17, fig. 3 and 17, examiner is interpreting the insulating frame to include the plastic end plate (4a) and the housing unit (9)).
Regarding claim 12, Kume discloses a device comprising at least one battery pack [0069-0073].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant argues that the art used in the prior office action does not read on the new claim limitations “and wherein the nut insertion chamber is configured such that when a bolt is inserted into a screw hole extending within the nut with a longitudinal axis of the bolt not being parallel to a longitudinal axis of the screw hole the nut is configured to self-align with the bolt by the nut pushing the second end of the protrusion so that the longitudinal axis of the screw hole becomes aligned with the longitudinal axis of the bolt”.
However, Kim discloses 1) a nut with a camfer structure (135C) capable of moving into aligning with a bolt [0140-0142, Kim] and 2) protrusions (125T) in contact with the nut and capable of preventing the nut from leaving [0135-0137, Kim].
These two features would provide a nut insertion chamber wherein if there is a misalignment between the nut and the bolt [0141, Kim], the nut will be capable of moving such that it is now in alignment with the bolt [0141, Kim]. Additionally, when the nut pushes against the protrusions (125T) its movement is restricted allowing for fastening of the bolt [0137, Kim]. These features read on the amended limitations.
Applicant asserts that both the nuts of Kim and Ito lack “freedom of motion”. However, upon further review of Kim, the nut inside the nut insertion chamber does have freedom of motion allowing it to move into alignment with the bolt and protrusions that assist with this alignment by preventing the nut from leaving.
Finally, the examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as the argument appears to require a larger freedom of movement than the BRI of the claim. The examiner’s stance is that any gap, regardless of how small, between the nut and the walls of the nut insertion chamber would provide, and read on, “freedom of movement”. Additionally, any indirect correction of the alignment of the nut would read on a nut configured to “self-align” with the bolt.
No further arguments are presented. The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724