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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tyler et al. (US 2019/0036101A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tyler discloses a sub-assembly configured to be connected to a first battery cell (current interrupt device, see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-4), the sub-assembly comprising:
a first busbar configured to electrically connect the first battery cell to a second battery cell when the sub-assembly is connected to the first battery cell (bus bar 220 [0037]); and
a first thermal cut-off device (TCO) directly and physically connected to the first busbar (thermal trigger 230 coupled to the bus bar 220, thermal trigger 230 has a shape memory characteristic with a first configuration below a predetermined temperature and a second configuration at or above the predetermined temperature configured to interrupt current [0041]-[0044], Fig. 1-4).
Further regarding claim 1 reciting “the sub-assembly does not extend above a top surface of the first battery cell when the sub-assembly is connected to the first battery cell”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the current interrupt device of Tyler is considered capable of performing the claimed intended function.
Regarding claim 2, Tyler discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tyler further discloses the sub-assembly further comprises a second positive tab connected directly to the first TCO (terminal 221 [0039]-[0041], Fig. 1-4).
Further regarding claim 2 reciting limitations directed to a battery cell (i.e., “the first battery cell comprises a first positive tab…, wherein the first positive tab is configured to be connected to the second positive tab”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the current interrupt device of Tyler is considered capable of performing the claimed intended function.
Regarding claim 5, Tyler discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tyler further discloses the first busbar is a material comprising copper (bus bar made of copper [0018]) and the first TCO is the same material (thermal trigger includes copper [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Tyler discloses a battery pack (battery pack or battery module [0017], [0038]) comprising:
a first battery cell (electrochemical cell [0017], [0038]); and
a sub-assembly configured to be connected to the first battery cell (current interrupt device, see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-4; bus bar connect to lead of an electrochemical cell [0017], [0038]), the sub-assembly comprising:
a first busbar configured to electrically connect the first battery cell to a second battery cell when the sub-assembly is connected to the first battery cell (bus bar connect to lead of an electrochemical cell and a system level busing of a battery pack or a battery module [0017], [0038]); and
a first thermal cut-off device (TCO) directly and physically connected to the first busbar (thermal trigger 230 coupled to the bus bar 220, thermal trigger 230 has a shape memory characteristic with a first configuration below a predetermined temperature and a second configuration at or above the predetermined temperature configured to interrupt current [0041]-[0044], Fig. 1-4).
Further regarding claim 6 reciting “the sub-assembly does not extend above a top surface of the first battery cell when the sub-assembly is connected to the first battery cell”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the current interrupt device of Tyler is capable of being connected to a first battery cell such that the current interrupt device would not extend above a top surface of the first battery cell.
Regarding claim 7, Tyler discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tyler further discloses the sub-assembly further comprises a second positive tab connected directly to the first TCO (terminal 221 [0039]-[0041], Fig. 1-4), wherein the first positive tab is configured to be connected to the second positive tab (bus bar connect to lead of an electrochemical cell and a system level busing of a battery pack or a battery module [0017], [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Tyler discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tyler further discloses the first busbar is a material comprising copper (bus bar made of copper [0018]) and the first TCO is the same material (thermal trigger includes copper [0025]).
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.
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) 3-4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (US 2019/0036101A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 10 above.
Regarding claim 3, Tyler discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tyler further discloses the sub-assembly is further configured to be connected to a third battery cell, the sub-assembly further comprising: a second busbar configured to electrically connect the second battery cell to the third battery cell; and a second TCO connected directly to the second busbar, wherein the sub-assembly does not extend above a top surface of the second battery cell when the sub-assembly is connected to the second battery cell (see Fig. 1-4).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to incorporate a second busbar and a second TCO connected directly to the second busbar because a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Further regarding claim 3 reciting limitations directed to battery cell(s) (i.e., “the sub-assembly is further configured to be connected to a third battery cell, the sub-assembly further comprising: a second busbar configured to electrically connect the second battery cell to the third battery cell; and a second TCO connected directly to the second busbar, wherein the sub-assembly does not extend above a top surface of the second battery cell when the sub-assembly is connected to the second battery cell”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the current interrupt device of Tyler is considered capable of performing the claimed intended function.
Regarding claim 4, Tyler discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tyler further discloses the second battery cell comprises a first positive tab, and wherein the sub-assembly further comprises a second positive tab connected directly to the second TCO, wherein the first positive tab is configured to be connected to the second positive tab (terminal 221 [0039]-[0041], Fig. 1-4).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to incorporate a second busbar and a second TCO connected directly to the second busbar because a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, Tyler discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tyler further discloses a second busbar configured to electrically connect the second battery cell to the third battery cell; and a second TCO connected directly to the second busbar, wherein the sub-assembly does not extend above a top surface of the second battery cell when the sub-assembly is connected to the second battery cell (terminal 221 [0039]-[0041], Fig. 1-4), wherein the first positive tab is configured to be connected to the second positive tab (bus bar connect to lead of an electrochemical cell and a system level busing of a battery pack or a battery module [0017], [0038]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to incorporate a second busbar and a second TCO connected directly to the second busbar because a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Further regarding claim 8 reciting limitations directed to battery cell(s) (i.e., “wherein the sub-assembly does not extend above a top surface of the second battery cell when the sub-assembly is connected to the second battery cell”, a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this case, the current interrupt device of Tyler is capable of being connected to a second battery cell in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 9, Tyler discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tyler further discloses the second battery cell comprises a first positive tab, and wherein the sub-assembly further comprises a second positive tab connected directly to the second TCO, wherein the first positive tab is configured to be connected to the second positive tab (terminal 221 [0039]-[0041], Fig. 1-4).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to incorporate a second busbar and a second TCO connected directly to the second busbar because a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 2/3/2026