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 .
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US PGPub 2016/0233476 A), and further in view of Lee at al. (US PGPub 2020/0014005 A1, cited on the IDS dated August 15, 2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Okamoto discloses in Figs. 1-2 and 8 a battery module (10) ([0029]) comprising:
a battery cell stack (25) in which a plurality of battery cells (20) are stacked ([0029]);
a busbar frame (40) for covering front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack (25) ([0029], [0044]);
a plurality of busbars (30) attached to the busbar frame (40) ([0029], [0034]);
a plurality of partition walls (41, 44) extending from the busbar frame (40), the plurality of partition walls (41, 44) including a first partition wall (41A, 44) and a second partition wall (41A) formed between the plurality of busbars (40) ([0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
971
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Okamoto does not disclose a module frame for housing the battery cell stack.
Lee teaches in Fig. 3 a battery module (M) comprising a module frame (6) for housing a battery cell stack (C) in order to protect the battery cell stack (C) from external impact ([0056], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a module frame in the battery module of Okamoto to house the battery cell stack of Okamoto, as taught by Lee, in order to protect the battery cell stack from external impact.
Furthermore, modified Okamoto does not disclose an end plate for covering the busbar frame.
Lee further teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the battery module (M) a busbar frame (120, 130) and an end plate (4) covering the busbar frame (120, 130) in order to protect the internal structure of an assembly configured by assembling the busbar frame (120, 130) and the battery cell stack (C) ([0056], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an end plate in the battery module of modified Okamoto, wherein the end plate covers the busbar frame of modified Okamoto, as further taught by Lee, in order to protect the internal structure of an assembly configured by assembling the busbar frame and the battery cell stack of modified Okamoto.
In one interpretation, modified Okamoto discloses a second space part (41A1 of Okamoto) formed between lower ends of the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) and a lower surface part of the end plate (4 of Lee) covering the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) (Figs. 1-2 of Okamoto and Fig. 3 of Lee, wherein a lower surface part of the end plate 30 is any part of the end plate 30 below a midpoint of the end plate).
In another interpretation, the Examiner notes wherein the plurality of partition walls (41, 44 of Okamoto) extend from the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) (Fig. 1, [0034]) and therefore modified Okamoto necessarily and inherently discloses wherein a second space is formed between lower ends of the plurality of busbars (30) and a lower surface of an end plate covering the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) (e.g. see annotated Fig. 1 of Okamoto provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
610
989
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a first space part is formed between the first partition wall (41A, 44 of Okamoto) and the second partition wall (41A of Okamoto) (e.g. see dashed line in annotated Fig. 2 of Okamoto provided above).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a lower end of the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) is located behind the second space part (e.g. see annotated Fig. 1. Of Okamoto provided above).
However, modified Okamoto does not disclose wherein an insulating cover is located in front of the second space part.
Lee further teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the battery module (M) further comprises an insulating cover (3) positioned between the busbar frame (120, 130) comprising a plurality of busbars (121, 122, 131, 131) attached thereon and the end plate (4) in order to prevent a short circuit between the plurality of busbars (121, 122, 131, 132) and the end plate (4) ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an insulating cover in the battery module of modified Okamoto, the insulating cover being positioned between the battery frame of modified Okamoto and the end plate of modified Okamoto, as further taught by Lee, such that the insulating cover is located in front of the second space part of modified Okamoto, in order to prevent a short circuit between the plurality of busbars of modified Okamoto attached to the busbar frame and the end plate.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first and second partition walls (41A, 44 and 41A of Okamoto respectively) cover side surfaces of two busbars (30 of Okamoto) facing each other among the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) (Figs. 1-2 of Okamoto).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) comprises a horizontal partition wall (41A of Okamoto) formed to extend in a horizontal direction so as to make contact with the lower ends of the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) (Fig. 8, [0035] of Okamoto).
PNG
media_image3.png
584
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses a jaw part (43 of Okamoto) formed to protrude forward and upward from the horizontal partition wall (41A of Okamoto), wherein the jaw part (43 of Okamoto) fixes the lower ends of the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) (Fig. 8, [0035] of Okamoto).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the jaw part (43 of Okamoto) is formed at a center of the lower ends of the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) respectively in order to achieve a retained state (Fig. 2, [0035] of Okamoto).
Consequently, modified Okamoto does not disclose wherein the jaw part is formed at both side ends of the lower ends of the plurality of busbars, respectively.
Though, modified Okamoto discloses wherein the configuration of the jaw part (43 of Okamoto) is not particularly limited ([0061], [0011] of Okamoto).
The Examiner notes that that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the jaw part of modified Okamoto at both side ends of the lower end parts of the plurality of busbars of modified Okamoto, respectively, as the configuration of the jaw part is not particularly limited and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully achieve a retained state, as desired by modified Okamoto.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein:
the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) comprise two terminal busbars (30, 32 of Okamoto) respectively formed at each end of the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) and a plurality of sensing busbars (30 of Okamoto) formed between the two terminal busbars (30, 32 of Okamoto) ([0043], [0033], [0050] of Okamoto, wherein the two busbars with extension portions 30, 32 are electrically connected to an external device and therefore function as terminal busbars and the two busbars 30 between them are connected to voltage detection lines and therefore function as sensing busbars), and
wherein an interval between each of the plurality of sensing busbars (30 of Okamoto) is wider than an internal between one of the two terminal busbars (30, 32 of Okamoto) and an adjacent sensing busbar (30 of Okamoto) (e.g. see intervals in circled portions of annotated Fig. 2 of Okamoto provided below).
PNG
media_image4.png
668
1060
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a height of a first partition wall (44 of Okamoto) adjacent to the one of the two terminal busbars (30, 32 of Okamoto) is higher than a height of a second partition wall (41A of Okamoto) adjacent to the adjacent sensing busbar (30 of Okamoto) (Fig. 1, [0035]-[0036] of Okamoto, see also annotated Fig. 2 of Okamoto provided above).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Okamoto remains silent regarding an intended use of the battery module and consequently suggests wherein such is not particularly limited.
However, modified Okamoto does not disclose a battery pack comprising the battery module.
Lee further teaches wherein a plurality of battery modules (M) may be connected in series or parallel, thereby forming a battery pack, for use in an electric vehicle ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the battery module of modified Okamoto in a battery pack, as further taught by Lee, as the intended use of the battery module is not particularly limited and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such could successfully be used in an electric vehicle.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) comprise a terminal busbar (30, 32 of Okamoto) and a sensing busbar (30 of Okamoto) ([0043], [0033], [0050] of Okamoto, wherein the busbars with extension portions 30, 32 are electrically connected to an external device and therefore function as terminal busbars and the busbars 30 between them are connected to voltage detection lines and therefore function as sensing busbars), and
wherein the first partition wall (41A, 44 of Okamoto) and the second partition wall (41A of Okamoto) are in a space between the terminal busbar (30, 32 of Okamoto) and the sensing busbar (30 of Okamoto) (e.g. see Fig. 2 of Okamoto provided below).
PNG
media_image5.png
668
1060
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein each of the first partition wall (41A, 44 of Okamoto) and second partition wall (41A of Okamoto) has a height in a direction extending outwardly from the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) (Fig. 1, [0035]-[0036] of Okamoto), and
wherein a height of the first partition wall (41A, 44 of Okamoto) is greater than a height of the second partition wall (41A of Okamoto) (Fig. 1, [0035]-[0036] of Okamoto).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Okamoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the plurality of partition walls (41, 44 of Okamoto) includes a pair of partition walls (41A of Okamoto) between each pair of the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) (Figs. 1-2 of Okamoto).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended Claim 1, the Applicant arguments that the cut-out portions 41A1 of Okamoto are not figured to be formed between the lower ends of the busbars and the lower surface of the end plates. Furthermore, Lee merely discloses general features of an end plate 4.
Therefore, even if the cut-out portions 41A1 of Okamoto were combined with the end plate 4 of Lee, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have derived the second space part of Claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Claim 1 recites “a lower surface part of an end plate” and therefore the Examiner is interpretating such to be any part of the end plate (4 of Lee) that is below a midpoint of the end plate (4 of Lee).
Thus, because the cut-out portions 41A1 of Okamoto are located below a midpoint of the battery module (e.g. Figs. 1-2 of Okamoto), they are positioned such that they are formed between lower ends of the plurality of busbars (30 of Okamoto) and a lower surface part of the end plate (4 of Lee) covering the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto).
The Examiner further notes that Applicant’s argument is directed to “the lower surface” of the end plate however the claim recites “a lower surface part” of the end plate and therefore the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
In another interpretation, the Examiner notes wherein the plurality of partition walls (41, 44 of Okamoto) extend from the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) (Fig. 1, [0034]) and therefore modified Okamoto necessarily and inherently discloses wherein a second space is formed between lower ends of the plurality of busbars (30) and a lower surface of an end plate covering the busbar frame (40 of Okamoto) (e.g. see annotated Fig. 1 of Okamoto provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
610
989
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
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 KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights