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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haino (JP 2019032924 A) and further in view of Amthor (US 4959280 A).
Regarding claim 1, Haino teaches a battery module including cylindrical cells (Fig. 1-3), the battery module comprising:
a cell structure configured with a plurality of cylindrical cell arrays (See Fig. 3 below, item 1),
each of the plurality of cylindrical cell arrays including a plurality of stacked cylindrical cells (Fig. 3, item 1), and
the plurality of cylindrical cell arrays being arranged in an aligned manner in a transverse direction of the battery module (See Fig. 3);
a first bus bar on a first side of the cell structure (See Fig. 3) and
a second bus bar on a second side of the cell structure (See Fig. 3)
wherein the first bus bar and the second bus bar make an electrical connection to each cylindrical cell array (Fig. 3);
a first end plate arranged on a side surface of the first bus bar (See Fig. 3);
a second end plate arranged on a side surface of the second bus bar (See Fig. 3);
a first cover arranged in front of the cell structure to cover the front side of the cell structure (See Fig. 1);
a second cover arranged behind the cell structure to cover the rear side of the cell structure (See Fig. 2);
a first cell carrier (See Fig. 3) having a body and a plurality of first receiving holes receiving one or several cylindrical cells of each of the plurality of cylindrical cell arrays from a first direction aligned with a direction that the cylindrical cells are stacked (See Fig. 3, arrays stacked in a transverse direction),
wherein the plurality of first receiving holes are configured to pass through the first cell carrier body (See Fig. 3); and
a second cell carrier (See Fig. 3) having a body and a plurality of second receiving holes receiving one or several other cylindrical cells of each of the plurality of cylindrical cell arrays from a second direction aligned with the direction that the cylindrical cells are stacked (See Fig. 3, arrays stacked in a transverse direction),
wherein the plurality of second receiving holes are configured to pass through the second cell carrier body (See Fig. 3);
wherein the first end plate and the second end plate are arranged on outermost cylindrical cells in the direction that the cylindrical cells are stacked to keep contact stress between the cylindrical cells uniform (Fig. 3 shows the end plates on the outermost cylindrical cells in the stacking/transverse direction); and
wherein the first cover and the second cover are configured to cover surfaces of the first cell carrier and the second cell carrier in a direction perpendicular to the direction that the cylindrical cells are stacked (Fig. 1-2 the first and second covers are perpendicular to the stacking/transverse direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
719
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
665
943
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Amthor, in the same field of endeavor, battery modules, teaches a battery module for all cylindrical cells including stacked coin cells (column 3, lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Haino’s battery module to include an embodiment for coin cells, as taught by Amthor, in order to combine multiple coin cells that will provide a higher voltage when connected in series without leakage, as taught by Amthor (column 1, lines 11-19).
Regarding claim 5, modified Haino teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein opening portions are formed in end portions of the plurality of receiving holes in the first cell carrier and the second cell carrier so as to allow end portions of the coin cell arrays received therein to be exposed to the outside therethrough (Haino, Fig. 3), and the first bus bar and the second bus bar are fixed on respective external surfaces of the first cell carrier and the second cell carrier having the opening portions (Haino, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, modified Haino teaches the battery module of claim 7, wherein the first cover or the second cover has an opening portion through which one portion of the sensing connector is exposed to the outside (Haino, Fig. 1-2 shows the sensing connector exposed to the outside through the first cover opening).
Regarding claim 11, modified Haino teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the coin cell is an all-solid-state battery (Haino, Fig. 1-3 depicts the cells as coin cells).
Regarding claim 18, modified Haino teaches a vehicle comprising a battery module of claim 1 (Haino, para. 0024).
Regarding claim 7, modified Haino teaches the battery module of claim 1, further comprising: a sensing circuit unit (Fig. 2, items 6, 11, and 12) comprising a first sensing wire (See Fig. 2) which is arranged between the first bus bar and the second bus bar at a rear side of the cell structure (See Fig. 2 for location of items 6, 11, and 12) and first end portions of the first sensing wire is connected to the first bus bar (See Fig. 2, the first wire is connected to the circuit board [6], which is connected to the first and second bus bars) and a sensing connector (Fig. 2, item 12) electrically connected to a second end portion of the first sensing wire (Fig. 2, item 12).
Modified Haino teaches a first sensing wire but does not teach:
a second sensing wire
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a number of sensing wires equal to a number of busbars of the battery module. The use of a separable structure [in this case providing a total of two sensing wires: one wire per busbar] instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art [one wire] would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 289, F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Therefore, modified Haino teaches:
the second sensing wire is connected to the second bus bar (See Fig. 2, the wire is connected to the circuit board [6], which is connected to the first and second bus bars);
a sensing connector (Fig. 2, item 12) electrically connected to second end portions of the first sensing wire and the second sensing wire (Fig. 2, item 12).
Regarding claim 9, modified Haino teaches the battery module of claim 1, wherein the first end plate and the second end plate have an internal plate brought into contact with the cell structure and the first bus bar and the second bus bar (Fig. 3).
Modified Haino does not teach wherein:
- the first end plate and the second end plate have an external plate exposed to the outside
- the internal plate is covered with an external plate
- wherein the external plate includes a concave-convex portion.
Embodiment, Fig. 13 of Haino teaches,
- the first end plate and the second end plate have an external plate (Fig. 13, item 7A, 7) exposed to the outside
- the internal plate is covered with an external plate (Fig. 13, item 7A, 7 covers the internal plate (item 21 which is analogous to the internal plate of Fig. 3 of Haino)
- wherein the external plate includes a concave-convex portion (Fig. 13 shows concave-convex portions along the four corners of plate 7A,7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the case of modified Haino with the covering material of embodiment Fig. 13 of Haino, as taught by Fig. 13 of Haino, in order to improve the heat dissipation characteristics of the battery (para. 0069).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haino (JP 2019032924 A) and further in view of Amthor (US 4959280 A) and Serby (US 4930419 A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Haino discloses the battery module of claim 1.
Modified Haino does not teach wherein electrode terminals on facing surfaces of adjacent coin cells included in the coin cell array are connected to each other by a bonding wire.
Serby, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein electrode terminals on facing surfaces of adjacent coin cells included in the coin cell array are connected to each other by a bonding wire (Serby, Fig. 2 shows the two coin cells connected by the lead wire (item 4)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery connections of Ahn’s battery to implement wire connections between cells, as taught by Serby, in order to determine battery condition without having to first accelerate the power source (Serby, column 3, lines 41-44).
Regarding claim 3, modified Haino teaches the battery module of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the bonding wire is bent in a V-shape and pressed between the adjacent coin cells (See Fig. 2 of Serby).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haino (JP 2019032924 A) and further in view of Amthor (US 4959280 A) and Phillips (US 20080113262 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Haino discloses the battery module of claim 5.
Haino does not teach wherein electrode terminals formed at the end portions of the plurality of coin cell arrays are wire-bonded to the first bar and the second bus bar, respectively, through the opening portions.
Phillips, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches:
wherein electrode terminals formed at the end portions of the plurality of coin cell arrays are wire-bonded to the first bar and the second bus bar, respectively, through the opening portions (Phillips, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added wire connections between the terminals and each respective bus bars to Haino’s bus bars, as taught by Phillips, in order to provide an alternative method of voltage sensing that is more immune to failure from vibration or shock, as taught by Phillips (Phillips, para. 0098).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haino (JP 2019032924 A) and further in view of Amthor (US 4959280 A) and Umemura (US 20200185691 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Haino discloses the battery module of claim 1.
Modified Haino does not teach:
a first clamp arranged on an upper portion of the cell structure;
a second clamp arranged on a lower portion of the cell structure,
the first clamp and the second clamp each have a structure of a bar extending from a center portion of the first end plate to a center portion of the second end plate, and
a first end portion of the first clamp and the second clamp joined to the first end plate and a second end portion of the first clamp and the second clamp joined to the second end plate.
Umemura, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches:
a first clamp arranged on an upper portion of the cell structure (Umemura, See Fig. 4 below);
a second clamp arranged on a lower portion of the cell structure (Umemura, Fig. 4),
the first clamp and the second clamp each have a structure of a bar extending from a center portion of the first end plate to a center portion of the second end plate (Umemura, Fig. 4), and
a first end portion of the first clamp and the second clamp joined to the first end plate and a second end portion of the first clamp and the second clamp joined to the second end plate (Umemura, Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
649
793
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added clamps to modified Haino’s battery module, as taught by Umemura, in order to bridge the pair of end plates, as taught by Umemura (para. 0063).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights