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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 11 is newly added. Claims 2-10 are as previously presented.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim interpretation
Claim 1 line 4 recites that the relay unit is pre-connected to at least one of the plurality of battery cell assemblies. The examiner notes that in any final product in which the relay unit is connected to a battery cell then the relay unit is pre-connected to the battery cell.
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”) pre-connected to at least one of 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 at least one of the plurality of battery cell assemblies 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], wherein 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 at least one of the plurality of battery cell assemblies 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 discharged in the quickest discharge possible via bypassing circuits of the other battery cells. This is 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 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 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional detail.
Applicant first argues that Hinterberger does not teach the resistor inside the battery module. Applicant states that Hinterberger consistently teaches the resistor arranged outside the module housing but does not provide explicit citations pointing to this fact. Rather the examiner has noted Hinterberger teaches of the resistor fixed to the cooling plates which are arranged on the surface of the individual battery cells as seen in fig. 18. While this would mean that the resistors are outside of the individual battery cells of the battery module it does not mean that the resistors are outside of the battery module itself. Rather [0085] and figures 3-6 teach of the plurality of battery modules being housed by a casing that surrounds the cooling plates, and by extension the resistors. This casing for the battery module defines the boundary of the battery module and if the cooling plates, cells, and resistors thermally coupled to the plates are within the casing then the resistors are within the battery module.
Applicant then argues the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees as Hinterberger teaches that the relay is connected to the battery cells. If they are connected then it stands to reason that they are pre-connected. For them to not be pre-connected would imply that the user of the battery module would have received the module itself and that they would then have to connect the wirings. This feature of a lack of connection between the relay and the cells is not taught by Hinterberger. As such they are pre-connected. Hinterberger further teaches that the discharge to a nonhazardous state happens in the shortest time possible [0105] this reads on an immediate formation of a short-circuit path. See the rejection of claim 1 for further citations for both of these limitations
Applicant then argues the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
183
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Again the examiner respectuflly disagrees as Hinterberger teaches of resistors being cooled by heat sinks which are located on the surface of the individual battery cells and as such all of these components are within the battery module (battery module being the final product in which all components are housed within a casing).
Applicant’s final argument is as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
86
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The cell-centric sequential discharge scheme of Hinterberger, as alleged by the applicant, would still read on the claim limitations.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The applicant presents no other arguments. As such the examiner maintains the rejection.
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 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
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724