Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received 08/19/2025:
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4, and 6 have been amended. Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 2 and 7-10 remain withdrawn. Claims 11-13 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton et al. (US 2018/0212222) in view of Wynn et al. (US 20170256769).
Regarding claim 1, Barton teaches a battery module, comprising: a plurality of battery cells 100 standing in a first direction, and including a pair of electrode terminals 106/108 disposed on top, and arranged in at least one direction; a cooling frame having an upper surface 202/1302 to which a bottom of the plurality of battery cells 100 is fixed, and extending in a second direction; an adhesive 1312 interposed between the plurality of battery cells 100 and the cooling frame 202/1302 (P24-26.42.64; Fig. 2.13); and an upper cover 900 configured to cover the plurality of battery cells (P26.46.59.66-68; Fig. 1.5.10).
Barton teaches a plurality of busbars, or interconnects 602/600 configured to contact the pair of electrode terminals 106/108 of each of the plurality of battery cells 100, wherein the plurality of busbars include a plurality of conductive wires 604/606 (P43-51; Fig. 6-9).
While Barton is silent in teaching the busbars, or interconnects are mounted on an outer surface of an upper frame configured to cover the plurality of battery cells; Barton also teaches an underside of the busbars is insulated so as to not form unintended electrical connections through contact of the busbars while insulation is removed/not present in regions where an electrical connection of the terminal is made. The housing may have features to electrically insulate the cells from one another and may have a means to hold the cells in an upright position (P24-27.43.47).
Wynn, in a similar field of endeavor related to a battery module comprising a plurality of battery cells in a first direction, teaches busbars 907 mounted on an upper frame, or upper tray member 1001/1101/1501 such that bus bars cannot be allowed to inadvertently make electrical contact with either battery terminal (P13.55.77; Fig. 10-11.15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have an upper frame in the module of Barton, configured to cover the plurality of battery cells where the plurality of busbars are mounted on an outer surface of the upper frame, as taught by Wynn to simplify the design and electrically isolate cells from one another.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art
Regarding claim 4, modified Barton in view of Wynn teaches the upper frame 1001/1101 includes: an exposure portion or apertures 1003/1403 which is open to expose the top of the plurality of battery cells 401 (P55-56.70; Fig. 10-15) and a protruding portion which protrudes over the pair of electrode terminal to cover parts of the pair of electrode terminals of each cell to ensure proper positioning, preventing the busbars from moving or undesirably connecting preventing short-circuiting (P50-70; Fig. 10-15).
Claims 5-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Barton in view of Wynn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moon (US 2009/0072785).
Regarding claim 5, modified Barton teaches the cooling frame, or base may be connected to the side walls through any suitable mechanical means such as fasteners, and the top plate and module may be manufactured in any way based on design requirements (P25.46.51.57-64.66-70) while Wynn of modified Barton teaches the upper frame or tray may be formed in any way known in the art such as paired with a cooling frame base and sidewalls (P49-53.77; Fig. 7)
Modified Barton in view of Wynn is silent in teaching the upper frame includes an upper wall disposed on the plurality of battery cells, and a sidewall configured to cover a side of the plurality of battery cells, wherein a fastening portion having a fastening hole is provided on a side of the sidewall of the upper frame, wherein an insertion groove which runs in an upward direction is provided on a bottom of the sidewall of the upper frame, and wherein the cooling frame includes a coupling portion which protrudes in the upward direction on an outer periphery of the cooling frame; however, Moon, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an upper frame 540 includes an upper wall disposed on the plurality of battery cells, and a sidewall 544 configured to cover a side of the plurality of battery cells, wherein a fastening portion having a fastening hole 548 is provided on a side of the sidewall of the upper frame, wherein an insertion groove S2 which runs in an upward direction is provided on a bottom of the sidewall of the upper frame 540, and wherein the base includes a coupling portion 526 which protrudes in the upward direction on an outer periphery of the cooling frame (P26.36-58; Fig. 4.6-7).
The fastening structure creates a strong coupling force between the upper fame and lower frame without degrading exterior quality and prevents the frames from easily separating from one another even when an external force is applied, while also allowing the case to be reused (P50-53.60-63)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the upper frame of modified Barton in view of Wynn include an upper wall disposed on the plurality of battery cells, or be formed integrally with the part of the sidewall configured to cover a side of the plurality of battery cells, wherein a fastening portion having a fastening hole is provided on a side of the sidewall of the upper frame, wherein an insertion groove which runs in an upward direction is provided on a bottom of the sidewall of the upper frame, and wherein the cooling frame includes a coupling portion which protrudes in the upward direction on an outer periphery of the cooling frame, as taught by Moon, to prevent the frames from separating and maintain exterior quality. Such construction would further inhibit movement of busbars preventing short circuiting.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, modified Barton teaches a filter 300/400 disposed around all sides of the plurality of battery cells (P29.32-36; Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, modified Barton the filler is filled in the battery module to such a height that the filler does not cover a positive electrode terminal and a negative electrode terminal disposed on each of the plurality of battery cells to allow electrical connection (P24.32-35; Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 12, modified Barton teaches the filler includes an electrically insulating material (P27.64)
Regarding claim 12, modified Barton teaches the filler is a polymer resin (P31).
Modified Barton is silent in teaching the product by process limitation that the filler is configured to be cured after being filled in the battery module; however, since the filler of modified Barton is similar to that of Applicants and performs the same function, Applicants process is not given patentable weight to the claim. “Even 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.” MPEP § 2113
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights