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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 Jun, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-21 under 35 USC § 103, Applicant notes that neither of the cited references of Babinot (US 2021/0273298) or Ferber (US 2011/0223776) teaches the limitation "the main body portions of the first component and the second component are connected by one of the respective connecting portions" (see pg. 12, para 1 of Applicant’s Remarks).
Applicant further argues that the cited reference cannot teach the claimed invention because they do not contemplate a battery connection module to connect battery cells that are irregularly arranged (see pg. 10, para 3 and pg. 12, para 2 of Applicant’s remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that Babinot discloses a battery connection module that comprises portions that correspond to the claimed first component and second component, and that these components are connected by a connecting portion, as set forth in detail in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that para [0008] of Babinot states that “The busbar is configured to electrically connect all the cells of an array in series and/or in parallel, as required by the design of the module.” It is therefore clear that the scope of Babinot’s invention includes alternative busbar configurations that are required by the design of the battery module. Further, it has been held that the rearrangement of the components of a prior art device is unpatentable when said rearrangement does not modify the operation of the device (see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)).
While neither Babinot or Ferber explicitly teach an irregular array of battery cells, the simple rearrangement of the existing components of the busbar module taught by the prior art to accommodate an irregular battery array would fail to modify the operation of the busbar module in a patentably distinct manner, and therefore would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention. Based on the teachings of para [0008] of Babinot set forth above, said artisan would have found it obvious to rearrange the components of the prior art busbar module in order to satisfy the design requirements of an irregular battery array.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same row" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-13 and 15-21 are similarly rejected as they incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the same row" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 is similarly rejected as it incorporates all of the limitations of claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babinot et al. (US 2021/0273298) in view of Ferber et al. (US 2011/0223776).
As to Claim 1, Babinot et al. discloses a battery connection module for connecting to a battery cell array including a plurality of columns of battery cells (see e.g. 40, [0075] and Figs. 3 and 7) with each column having the same number of battery cells, a battery cell of a first column of adjacent columns being positioned between two corresponding battery cells of a second column of the adjacent columns, the plurality of columns repeating arrangement of the adjacent columns in a row direction and forming a plurality of rows of the battery cells, a battery cell of one row of adjacent rows being positioned between two corresponding battery cells of other rows of the adjacent rows (see e.g. the array of cells 40 shown in Figs. 3 and 7 and Illustration 1 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
717
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
682
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration : Reproduction with modification of Fig. 3 of Babinot et al. showing the arrangement of columns and rows of cells.
each battery cell having a positive electrode and a negative electrode (see e.g., positive pole 48 and negative pole 52, respectively, [0087] and Fig. 2), the battery connection module comprising:
a tray (see e.g. plate 20, [0068] and Figs. 2-3); and
a plurality of connecting busbars which are assembled on the tray (see e.g. laminated busbar 12, [0068] Fig. 7),
each connecting busbar (12) having a plurality of components, each component having a main body portion, a head portion which extends from a first end of the main body portion and a foot portion which extends from a second end of the main body portion (see e.g. Fig. 3 and Illustration 2 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
287
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 3 of Babinot et al.
the head portion being configured to connect to the positive electrode (48) of a corresponding battery cell, the foot portion being configured to connect to the negative electrode (52) of a corresponding battery cell (see e.g. Fig. 2 and Illustration 3 below), the main body portions of the components of the connecting busbar being connected by respective connecting portions (see e.g. Illustration 2 above), and
PNG
media_image4.png
316
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Illustration 3: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 2 of Babinot et al.
wherein in each connecting busbar, a first component has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of every other column of the same row (see e.g. Fig. 7 and Illustration 4 below),
and a second component likewise has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of every other column of the same row (see e.g. Fig. 7 and Illustration 4 below). The main body portions of the first and second components of Babinot et al’s battery connection module are connected via a respective connecting portion (see e.g. Fig. 7 and Illustration 4 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
336
591
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
239
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Illustration 4: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 7 of Babinot et al.
The configuration of Babinot et al.’s battery connection module differs from the instantly-claimed module in that Babinot et al. does not disclose that
the first component has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of adjacent columns and adjacent rows; a second component has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of every other column in the same row and the main body portions of the first component and the second component are connected by one of the respective connecting portions.
However, it has been held that the rearrangement of the components of a prior art device is unpatentable when said rearrangement does not modify the operation of the device (see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)). In the instant case, Babinot et al. teaches that “The busbar is configured to electrically connect all the cells of an array in series and/or in parallel, as required by the design of the module” (se e.g. Babinot et al.: [0008]). Additionally, Ferber et al., also working on the problem of busbar designs for battery cell arrays, teaches an analogous structure in which a busbar comprising a series of components connects to the cells in a battery array (see e.g. modular interconnects 460/470, that form electrical connections with power cells, [0048] and Figs. 10-11). In Ferber et al.’s disclosure, Ferber et al. demonstrates that the shape of the busbar array can be modified depending on the desired configuration of the cell array. For example, Fig. 10 of Ferber et al. shows an arrangement in which a component connects two cells in the same column and every other row to yield a 10s4p (10 cells in series, 4 in parallel) configuration, while Fig. 11 shows an alternative component arrangement that connects two cells in adjacent columns and adjacent rows such that all the cells are connected in parallel.
Given the above teachings of both Babinot et al. and Ferber et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of Babinot et al.’s battery connection module such that the first component has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of adjacent columns and adjacent rows; a second component has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of every other column in the same row and the main body portions of the first component and the second component are connected by one of the respective connecting portions. Such a modification would fail to change the operation of Babinot et al.’s busbar connection module in a patentably distinct manner, and would yield only readily predictable effects in light of the teachings of Babinot et al. and Ferber et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to change the configuration of Babinot et al.’s battery connection module in this manner in order meet the design requirements of an irregularly-spaced battery array or to adjust the number of cells to be connected in series or in parallel in the manner suggested by Ferber et al.
As to Claim 13, Babinot et al. discloses a battery pack according to claim 17, wherein each
connecting busbar comprises X head portions and X foot portions, with X = 13 (see e.g. Fig. 7).
In Babinot et al.’s cell array, some of the columns of the cell array have six cells and some have seven cells (see e.g. Fig. 7, where the first column has six cells and the second column has seven cells).
Babinot et al. does not disclose an array in which each column of the battery cell array has Y battery cells and is the same in the number of battery cells, and each connecting busbar comprising X head portions and X foot portions, with X larger than Y
However, Babinot et al. states that the arrangement of cells depicted in the figures is not limiting, and Babinot et al. teaches that the arrangement of cells can be varied ([0073]-[0074], [0130]). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have found it obvious to modify the arrangement of the battery cell array of Babinot et al. by removing cells such that each column has Y cells (where Y = six, which is less than 13), and said artisan would have recognized such an arrangement to be a functional equivalent of Babinot et al.’s design that would fail to produce any new benefit that would not have been reasonably expected.
As to Claim 15, Babinot et al. discloses a battery pack according to claim 17, wherein each connecting busbar has five components (see e.g. busbar 12, which has thirteen components, as per Fig. 7 and Illustration 2 above).
As to Claim 16, Babinot et al. discloses the battery pack according to claim 15, wherein each connecting busbar spans the battery cells of four columns (see e.g. Fig. 7 and Illustration 5 below, in which the front head portion of laminated busbar 12 contacts a first column of cells while the rear foot portion of said busbar contacts a fourth column of cells).
PNG
media_image7.png
232
458
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Illustration 5: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 7 of Babinot et al.
As to Claim 17, Babinot et al. discloses a battery pack comprising a battery cell array (see e.g. the array of cells 40 in Figs. 2-3) and the battery connection module of claim 1.
As to Claim 18, Babinot et al. discloses a battery pack according to claim 15, wherein each connecting busbar spans the battery cells of four columns and spans the battery cells of six rows
(see e.g. Fig. 3 and Illustration 6 below. The front head portion of laminated busbar 12 contacts a first column of cells while the rear foot portion of said busbar contacts a fourth column of cells. Additionally, the connecting busbar spans the battery cells of six rows as per Illustration 6 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
361
674
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Illustration 6: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 7 of Babinot et al.
As to Claim 19, Babinot et al. discloses a battery pack according to claim 15, wherein each connecting busbar spans the battery cells of four columns and spans the battery cells of six rows
(see e.g. Fig. 3 and Illustration 6 above. The front head portion of laminated busbar 12 contacts a first column of cells while the rear foot portion of said busbar contacts a fourth column of cells. Additionally, the connecting busbar spans the battery cells of six rows as per Illustration 6 above).
As to claim 20, Babinot et al. discloses the battery pack according to claim 17, wherein in each connecting busbar, another one of the components (see e.g. Fig 7 and Illustration 4 above. Any two of the components can be considered to be “one of the components” and “another one of the components”) has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of every other column (see e.g. Fig. 7 and Illustration 7 above), and another one of the components has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells in the same row (see e.g. Fig. 7 and Illustration 7 above).
Babinot et al. does not explicitly disclose a battery connection module in which another one of the components has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of adjacent columns. Further, Babinot et al. does not disclose a battery connection module in which another one of the components has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of adjacent rows.
Ferber et al., also working on the problem of busbar design for battery cell arrays, teaches an analogous structure in which a busbar comprising a series of components connects to the cells in a battery array (see e.g. modular interconnects 460/470, that form electrical connections with power cells, [0048] and Figs. 10-11). In Ferber et al.’s disclosure, Ferber et al. demonstrates that the shape of the busbar array can be modified depending on the desired configuration of the cell array. For example, Fig. 10 of Ferber et al. shows an arrangement in which a component connects two cells in the same column and every other row to yield a 10s4p (10 cells in series, 4 in parallel) configuration, while Fig. 11 shows an alternative component arrangement that connects two cells in adjacent columns and adjacent rows such that all the cells are connected in parallel. Additionally, Babinot et al. teaches that the busbar is configured to electrically connect the cells of an array in series and/or in parallel, as required by the design of the module (see e.g. Babinot et al.: [0008]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the busbar of Babinot et al. such that another one of the components has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of adjacent columns. It would also have been obvious to said artisan to modify the busbar of Babinot et al. such that another one of the components has the head portion thereof and the foot portion thereof separately connected to battery cells of adjacent rows. This is because Ferber et al. teaches that the configuration and connectivity of the busbar can be modified as needed to suit the design requirements of the module, such as the number of cells to be connected in series or in parallel. Additionally, modifying the busbar of Babinot et al. in the manner described above would yield readily predictable results and would fail to yield any new or unexpected benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to Claim 21, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. discloses a battery pack comprising a battery cell array (see e.g. the array of cells 40 in Figs. 2-3) and the battery connection module of claim 20.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babinot et al. (US 2021/0273298) in view of Ferber et al. (US 2011/0223776) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wynn et al. (US 2020/0067061).
As to Claim 2, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. discloses battery connection module according to claim 1, wherein in each component the main body portion is a plane structure and extends linearly (see e.g. Fig. 3 and Illustration 2 above) and a lower surface of the head portion is coplanar with a lower surface of the main body portion (see e.g. Fig. 2, showing head portion 222 being coplanar with the main body portion).
However, the thickness of the head portion (222) of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.’s connection module is identical to that of the main body portion (see e.g. Fig. 2), and Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. does not disclose an embodiment in which the thickness of the head portion is less than the thickness of the main body portion.
Wynn et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar for an array of battery cells having a head portion (see e.g. fusible link 813) that connects to the terminal of a battery cell in which the head portion is thinner than the main body portion of the busbar (see e.g. 813, which reads on the head portion, connects to cell 803, and is thinner than main body portion 810, Wynn et al.: [0074]-[0075], and Figs. 8-9).
Wynn et al.’s busbar head portion is thinner than the main body of the busbar in order to allow for laser welding of the head to the cell, which cannot be done reliably if the thickness of the material is too great (see e.g. [0062]). Additionally, Wynn et al. teaches that a locally-thinned head portion allows for the head portion to act as a fusible link that melts at a predetermined current to protect against an overcurrent (see e.g. [0002], [0006], [0075]-[0076]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to design the head portion of the connection module of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. to have a thickness that is less than the thickness of the main body portion, as suggestd by Wynn et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the prior art structure’s design in this way in order to both allow for reliable laser welding and to create a fusible link to protect the system against overcurrent, as taught by Wynn et al.
As to Claim 5, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. discloses the battery connection module according to claim 1.
However, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. does not disclose a battery connection module wherein the main body portion of each component of each connecting busbar is provided with a fusible portion which acts as overcurrent protection, wherein in each connecting busbar a cross sectional area of the fusible portion in a thickness direction is minimum relative to a cross sectional area of other part of the main body portion.
Wynn et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar for an array of battery cells having a main body portion (see e.g. 810) that comprises a fusible portion (see e.g. fusible link 813, [0074]-[0075], Figs. 8-9). Wynn et al.’s fusible portion has a cross-sectional area in a thickness direction that is minimum relative to a cross-sectional area of another part of the main body portion (see e.g. 813, which reads on the claimed fusible portion and is thinner than body portion 810, Fig. 9). Wynn et al. teaches that this fusible portion acts as overcurrent protection by melting when the current rises above a predetermined threshold (see .e.g. [0006], [0075]). Wynn et al. further teaches that providing the main body portion with a fusible portion allows for the protects against an overcurrent by melting at a predetermined current (see e.g. [0002], [0006], [0075]-[0076]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the main body portion of each of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.’s connecting busbars with Wynn et al.’s fusible portion, which acts as overcurrent protection such that a cross sectional area of the fusible portion in a thickness direction is minimum relative to a cross sectional area of other part of the main body portion, as taught by Wynn et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.’s design in this way in order to protect the system against overcurrent, as taught by Wynn et al.
As to Claim 6, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Wynn et al. discloses the battery connection module according to claim 5.
Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Wynn et al. does not disclose a battery connection module wherein the main body portion of each component is provided with a material removed portion and the fusible portion is constructed by the material removed portion.
Wynn et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar for an array of battery cells having a main body portion (see e.g. 810) that comprises a fusible portion (see e.g. fusible link 813) which is thinner than the main body portion and thereby can reasonably be said to be constructed by a material removed portion (see e.g. [0074]-[0075] and Figs. 8-9). Wynn et al.’s fusible portion acts as overcurrent protection by melting when the current rises above a predetermined threshold (see e.g. [0006], [0075]). Wynn et al. teaches that providing the main body portion with a fusible portion allows for the protects against an overcurrent by melting at a predetermined current (see e.g. [0002], [0006], [0075]-[0076]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide each of the main body portions of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Wynn et al.’s battery connection module with Wynn et al.’s fusible portion which is constructed by a material removed portion. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Wynn et al.’s design in this way in order to protect the system against overcurrent, as taught by Wynn et al.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babinot et al. (US 2021/0273298) in view of Ferber et al. (US 2011/0223776) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jan et al. (US 2014/0255748).
As to Claim 3, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. discloses the battery connection module according to claim 1 wherein each connecting busbar comprises a foot portion (see e.g. second terminal 224, [0102] and Fig. 3).
However, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. does not disclose a connection module wherein the foot portion of each component of each connecting busbar has two branching feet.
Jan et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar (see e.g. 808) which is connected to a negative terminal of a cell via a plurality of branching feet (see e.g. bond wires 810/236, which read on the claimed branching feet and connect negative terminal 806 to cel 802, [0035] and Figs. 2B and 8). Jan et al.’s design enables the busbar to be connected to a battery terminal that is located at a height that is beneath the plane of the busbar (see e.g. Fig. 2B).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to modify the busbar of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. to include a plurality of branching feet in the manner taught by Jan et al. This is because said artisan would have recognized that the claimed use of Jan et al.’s busbar design is a combination of known elements that performs the same function of the foot portion of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.’s busbar (i.e., the function of electrically connecting the busbar to the terminal of a battery cell). Additionally, said artisan would have been motivated to use Jan et al.’s plurality of feet to connect Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.’s busbar to a battery terminal in order to accommodate a battery terminal having a height that is below the plane of the busbar, as taught by Jan et al.
As to Claim 4, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. discloses the battery connection of claim 1 wherein each connecting busbar comprises a foot portion (see e.g. second terminal 224, [0102] and Fig. 3).
However, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. does not disclose a battery connection module wherein in each component the foot portion has a first part, a second part and a third part, the first part extends from the main body portion and is coplanar with the main body portion, the second part extends downwardly and obliquely from the first part by an angle, and the third part extends from the second part by an angle and is parallel to the first part, the third part being configured to connect to connect the negative electrode of a corresponding battery cell.
Jan et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar (see e.g. 808) which is connected to a negative terminal of a cell via a foot portion (see e.g. bond wires 810/236, which read on the claimed branching feet and connect negative terminal 806 to cel 802, [0035] and Figs. 2B and 8). Further, Jan et al.’s foot portion (see e.g. 810/236) comprises a first part, a second part, and a third part wherein the first part extends from the main body portion and is coplanar with the main body portion, the second part extends downwardly and obliquely from the first part by an angle, the third part extends from the second part by an angle and is parallel to the first part, and the third part is used to connect the busbar to the negative electrode of a corresponding battery cell (see e.g. [0035], Fig. 2B and Illustration 7 below). Jan et al. teaches that this design enables the busbar to be connected to a battery terminal that is located at a height that is beneath the plane of the busbar (see e.g. Fig. 2B).
PNG
media_image9.png
251
419
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Illustration 7: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 2B of Jan et al.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to modify the busbar of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. in the manner taught by Jan et al. such that the foot portion comprises a first part that extends from the main body portion and is coplanar with the main body portion, a second part that extends downwardly and obliquely from the first part by an angle, and a third part that extends from the second part by an angle and is parallel to the first part, where the third part is configured to connect the busbar to the negative electrode of a corresponding battery cell. This is because said artisan would have recognized that Jan et al.’s busbar design is an art-recognized alternative design that performs the same function of the foot portion of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.’s busbar (i.e., the function of electrically connecting the busbar to the terminal of a battery cell). Additionally, said artisan would have been motivated to use Jan et al.’s plurality of feet to connect Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.’s busbar to a battery terminal in order to accommodate a battery terminal having a height that is below the plane of the busbar, as taught by Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babinot et al. (US 2021/0273298) in view of Ferber et al. (US 2011/0223776) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Durse et al. (US 2020/0403329).
As to Claim 7, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. discloses the battery connection module according to claim 1.
However, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. does not disclose a battery connection module wherein each connecting busbar is provided with a first assembling hole, each connecting busbar and the tray are assembled by a connecting member which extends through the first assembling hole and is connected with the tray.
Durse et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar (see e.g. 40) comprising a first assembling hole (see e.g. first hole 42, [0049] and Fig. 3). Durse et al.’s busbar is connected to a tray (see e.g. shroud portion 30) via a connecting member (see e.g. bolt 56) which extends through the first assembling hole (see e.g. 42, [0049] and Fig. 3). Durse et al. teaches that this design clamps the end of the busbar tightly (see e.g. [0049]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide each connecting busbar of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. with a first assembling hole as taught by Durse et al., and to connect that connecting busbar to the tray with a connecting member which extends through the first assembling hole in the manner taught by Durse et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al.’s battery construction module in this way in order to tightly clamp the busbar in place, as taught by Durse et al.
As to claim 8, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. discloses the battery connection module according to claim 7, wherein the tray has a plurality of regions, each of which is configured to be positioned among three corresponding adjacent battery cells (see e.g. Figs. 1-2 of Babinot et al., the examiner notes that any regions of the tray can reasonably be considered to read on the claimed “plurality of regions.” As Babinot et al. discloses an array of multiple battery cells as per Figs. 1-2, any portion of Babinot et al.’s tray 20 can be considered to be “among three corresponding adjacent battery cells”).
However, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. as applied above does not disclose a first assembling hole of a connecting busbar that is aligned with a region of the tray.
Durse et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar (see e.g. 40) comprising a first assembling hole (see e.g. first hole 42, [0049] and Fig. 3). Durse et al.’s busbar is connected to a tray (see e.g. shroud portion 30) via a connecting member (see e.g. bolt 56) which extends through the first assembling hole (see e.g. [0049] and Fig. 3). Durse et al. teaches that this design clamps the end of the busbar tightly (see e.g. [0049]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the busbar of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. with a first assembling hole aligned with a region of the tray, as taught by Durse et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the prior art battery construction module in this way in order to tightly clamp the busbar in place, as taught by Durse et al.
As to claim 9, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. discloses the battery connection module according to claim 8.
However, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. as applied above does not disclose a battery connection module wherein each region of the tray has a second assembling hole, the second assembling hole is aligned with the first assembling hole in each region; and wherein each connecting busbar and the tray are assembled by the respective connecting member extending through the first assembling hole and the second assembling hole.
Durse et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a tray (see e.g. 30) that is provided with a second assembling hole (see e.g. second hole 44) that is aligned with the first assembling hole (see e.g. 42) wherein the connecting busbar and the tray are assembled by a connecting member (see e.g. bolt 56) which extends through the first assembling hole and the second assembling hole (see e.g. [0049] and Fig. 3). Durse et al. teaches that this design clamps the end of the busbar tightly ([0049]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the busbar of Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. with a tray wherein each region of the tray has a second assembling hole, the second assembling hole is aligned with the first assembling hole in each region; and wherein each connecting busbar and the tray are assembled by the respective connecting member extending through the first assembling hole and the second assembling hole as taught by Durse et al. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the prior art battery construction module in this way in order to tightly clamp the busbar in place, as taught by Durse et al.
As to claim 10, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. discloses the battery connection module according to claim 9 wherein each connecting member is a connecting pin, a screw or a rivet (see e.g. the threaded bolt 56 of Durse et al., which can reasonably be considered to be a connecting pin, rivet, or screw, see Durse et al., [0049] and Fig. 3).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babinot et al. (US 2021/0273298), Ferber et al. (US 2011/0223776), and Durse et al. (US 2020/0403329) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 112332035, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 11, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. discloses the battery connection module of claim 8.
However, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al. and Durse et al. does not disclose a battery connection module wherein each connecting member is integrally provided to the respective region of the tray; and wherein an end of each connecting member extends through the first assembling hole of the respective region.
Wang et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a tray (see e.g. isolation plate 23) with a connecting member (see e.g. post 235) that is integrally provided to the tray (see e.g. [0069], [0072]). Wang et al.’s connecting member extends through a first assembling hole (see e.g. positioning hole 214) in the connecting busbar (see e.g. bus group 21, [0110] and Fig. 6). Wang et al. further teaches that and that this arrangement connects the busbar in a stable manner (see e.g. [0110]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the respective triangular regions of the tray of the structure taught by Babinot et al., Ferber et al., and Durse et al. above with Wang et al.’s integrally-provided connecting members, such that said connecting members are integrally provided with the tray, that extend through the first assembling hole, and which are connected by hot melting, as is taught by Wang et al. Said artisan would have recognized that Wang et al.’s integrally-provided connecting member is an art-recognized alternative structure that performs an equivalent function to the connecting member already taught by the combined teachings of Babinot et al., Ferber et al., and Durse et al.
As to claim 12, Babinot et al. in view of Ferber et al., Durse et al., and Lee discloses the battery connection module according to claim 11, wherein a part of the end of each connecting member through the respective first assembling hole is connected with the respective connecting busbar by hot melting or riveting (see e.g. pin 235, which reads on the claimed connecting member, is connected to positioning hole 214 via heat fusing, Lee: [0110]).
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
07/20/2026
Prosecution Insights