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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim interpretation
Claim 1 line 4 recites: “a relay unit connected to a predetermined battery cell assembly among the plurality of battery cell assemblies”.
The examiner notes that “predetermined”, as used in the claim set is broad. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “predetermined” includes, determining or selecting one of the plurality of battery cell assemblies to connect a relay unit to prior to connecting the relay unit. The examiner notes that prior to connecting a relay unit to a battery cell assembly, one must first determine or select a battery cell assembly to connect the relay unit to. Only after this determination has been made can one connect the relay unit to the cell assembly.
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, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger (US 20190299799 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Hinterberger discloses a battery module comprising [0001, fig. 1, Hinterberger]: a plurality of battery cell assemblies each comprising at least one battery cell [0001, fig. 1, Hinterberger]; a cooling device (74, reads on “heat sink”) located under the plurality of battery cell (24, 26, 28) assemblies [0051, 0084-0085, fig. 1-2, Hinterberger]; a switch unit (32, reads on “relay unit”) connected to a predetermined battery cell assembly among the plurality of battery cell assemblies [0001, 0020-0030, 0035, 0045, 0048, 0077-0078, fig. 7-16, Hinterberger]; and an electrical resistor (36) connected to the predetermined battery cell assembly through the relay unit [0048, 0082, fig 7-16, Hinterberger], the coil resistor unit being configured to be cooled by the heat sink [0082-0083, 0095, Hinterberger], herein the relay unit (32, switching unit) has a switch configured to be turned on when a hazardous state (e.g. overheating) of any one of the plurality of battery cell assemblies and occurs [0010, 0014, 0024, 0027, 0038, 0043-0044, 0046, 0097, fig. 7-15, Hinterberger], thereby immediately causing an external short circuit of the predetermined battery cell assembly connected to the relay unit so as to rapidly reduce energy of the battery module [0010-0011, 0022, 0024-0028, 0046, 0105, Hinterberger teaches of the cells being selectively and orderly done to get the battery to a non-hazardous state in the shortest possible time. This reads on an immediate external short circuit to rapidly reduce the energy of the battery].
The examiner notes the following in regards to the claim limitation of “a coil resistor unit disposed inside the battery module”. Figure 18 depicts a series of battery cells in parallel fixed (26) to a heat sink (38) and thermally coupled to resistors [0082, fig. 18, Hinterberger]. Hinterberger further teaches of a housing that goes around the series of battery cells fixed in parallel [fig. 4-6, Hinterberger]. The housing that surrounds the battery cells additionally encompasses the cooling surfaces [0085, Hinterberger]. This reads on the applicant’s claim limitation as the resistor is coupled to the cooling surface the resistor itself would be placed within the housing of the battery module.
Hinterberger continues to teach wherein, upon occurrence of an abnormal situation, energy drain is performed through the predetermined battery cell assembly [0010-0011, 0022, 0024-0028, 0046, 0105, Hinterberger teaches that one may completely discharge the battery module such that hazardous state of the battery as a whole can be prevented].
In an effort to expedite prosecution the examiner notes that if even a single cell within the battery cell assembly has been “energy drained” then the total energy within the battery cell assembly has been reduced. In other words an energy drain has been performed on the battery cell assembly.
In regards to the claimed limitation “and wherein the battery cell assembly though which the energy drain is performed is not changed depending on which battery cell assembly experience the abnormal situation. Hinterberger’s teachings include connecting a “relay unit” to a “battery cell assembly” such that energy from the cell stack and/or individual cells may be drained during a hazardous state. Hinterberger additionally teaches that a battery module (“cell assembly”) in a hazardous state is preferably subjected to complete discharge [0024, 0026, Hinterberger]. This reads on the applicant’s claimed limitation as the battery cell assembly of Hinterberger is taught to preferably be completely discharged. If it is fully discharged then the battery cell assembly undergoing energy drain has not been changed regardless of which battery cell assembly experiences the abnormal situation.
Hinterberger is explicitly silent to the electrical resistor being a coil resistor.
However, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to select from the limited number of electrical resistors capable of performing the necessary function required in the art. Selection the coil resistor species from the finite number of electrical resistors known to one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to try barring evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Hinterberger teaches that the resistors may be connected to a cooling surface (38) located on the side of the plurality of batteries [0082-0083, fig. 18, Hinterberger].
The examiner notes that the plurality of batteries are located outside of the heat sink (cooling device, 74) [0084, fig. 2, Hinterberger].
Regarding claim 9, Hinterberger discloses a battery pack (30) comprising: at least one battery module (24, 26, 28) and a case (72) housing the at least one battery module [0084, fig. 2, Hinterberger].
Regarding claim 10, Hinterberger discloses a vehicle comprising at least one battery pack [0018, 0083-0084, Hinterberger].
Regarding claim 11, Hinterberger discloses the battery module wherein the coil resistor (36, electrical resistor) unit is configured to drain energy from the at least one battery cell until a state of charge of the at least one battery cell is a predefined lower state of charge [0046, 0049, 0091, 0095, 0105, fig. 7-15 and 17, Hinterberger teaches that an individual cell may be drained to a predefined lower state of charge. In figures 7-15 and 17 Hinterberger shows that individual battery cells may be drained to a SOC(low) or SOC(lowest) state. Including down to a SOC of 0%].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 20150303528 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hinterberger teaches that the electrical resistor may be connected to a cooling surface (38, fig. 18) located on the side of the plurality of battery modules and that a cooling device (74, fig. 2; equivalent to heat sink) may be located below the battery module [0082-0084, fig. 2, 18, Hinterberger].
Hinterberger is explicitly silent to the resistor being located within the heat sink (cooling device).
However, Wu discloses the battery module, wherein the coil resistor unit is located inside the heat sink [0020, 0024 Wu discloses that the resistors are located within a heat dissipation space (33), which the examiner is interpreting to be equivalent to a heat sink as it allows for the passage of liquid or air].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motived to Hinterberger to have the resistors of Wu be within the heat sink as disclosed by Wu as it would allow for heat to dissipate from the resistor [0024, Wu].
Regarding claim 3, Hinterberger as modified above discloses the battery module, wherein the coil resistor unit comprises: an electrical resistor (equivalent to a “coil resistive member”) connected to the at least one of the plurality of battery cell assemblies [0048, 0082, fig 7-16, Hinterberger]; and a resistor case covering the coil resistive member [abstract, 0010 Wu discloses that the balance resistors are cement resistors. Cement resistors are a resistor surrounded by cement. As such, the examiner is interpreting the cement to a resistor case covering the coil resistive member], wherein the resistor case is fixed to the heat sink [0082-0084, Hinterberger discloses the resistor may be connected to a cooling surface. Furthermore 0020, Fig. 1 Wu discloses that the resistors are attached to the heat dissipation plate (heat sink).].
Regarding claim 4, Hinterberger as modified above discloses the battery module, wherein the resistor unit further comprises a pair of coil holders [fig. 2, Wu discloses that the coil holders (412) are used to mount the coil to the heat sink], wherein each of the pair of coil holders is positioned on either side of the coil resistive member [fig. 2, Wu discloses that the holders (412) are on either side of the coil resistive member], respectively, and wherein the pair of coil holders is connected to the resistor case [fig. 2, Wu ].
Regarding claim 5, Hinterberger as modified above discloses the battery module, wherein the coil resistor unit further comprises: a sealing member between the coil resistive member and the pair of coil holders [fig. 1 (411), Wu. The examiner is interpreting a “sealing member” to be a member used to fasten something securely. As such (411) is attached to the cement casing an is used to seal/fasten the resistor to the heat sink (30)].
Regarding claim 6, Hinterberger as modified above discloses the battery module, wherein the resistor case comprises an insulating material [0010, Wu discloses using a cement resistor, cement is an insulator].
Claim(s) 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinterberger as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Poirier (US 20190305389 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Hinterberger is silent to the resistor being located between the heat sink and plurality of battery cell assemblies, where the resistor is fixed to a top of the heat sink.
However, Poirier discloses a battery module, wherein current shunt (equivalent to coil resistor unit) is located between the heat sink and the plurality of battery cell assemblies, and wherein the coil resistor unit is fixed to a top of the heat sink [0058, fig. 2-4 Poirier discloses that resistive element is placed on top of the heat sink (plate body 66) and resides within the heat exchanger plate (64) which is below the battery cell assemblies.].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Hinterberger such the resistor was located on top of the heat sink and between the heat sink and plurality of battery cells as this would allow for heat from the resistor to be conducted into the heat sink allowing for heat to be dissipated from the resistor [0058, Poirier].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional detail.
Applicant argues allowability of amended claim 1 and notes the following.
First, applicant argues that the discharge scheme of Hinterberger is inherently variable and dependent on which battery cell experiences the abnormal condition. As cited and discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hineterberger teaches that the battery module (“cell assembly”) should be fully discharged when an abnormal state is occurring [0022-0028, Hinterberger]. This teaching still reads on the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Secondly, applicant argues the stepwise approach of Hinterberger in which each of the battery cells are discharged one at a time while discharging the battery module. The examiner notes that the claimed limitations only require the battery cell assembly (“module”) to undergo an energy drain and that a stepwise approach of each individual cell is not excluded from the present claim.
Thirdly, applicant argues the simplicity of their invention to that of Hinterberger. However, in doing so applicant argues the intended use of their invention and ignores that structure which is being described in the claim set.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Finally applicant alleges that Hinterberger neither discloses nor suggests a structure in which the discharge target remains fixed irrespective of the location of the abnormal condition. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this as Hinterberger teaches of a complete discharge of the battery module when an abnormal state is detected. [0024, Hinterberger]. In other words Hinterberger’s teachings include a fully discharge of a cell stack regardless of which cell experiences the abnormal condition.
The applicant presents no other arguments. As such the examiner maintains the 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
/BRIAN R OHARA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights