DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2026 has been entered. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/242,690 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Independent claims 1 and 8, and thus all those dependent thereon, are not supported by the provisional application '690.
The only ribbon bonding disclosed in the provisional is between cells and the common current collector (see Figs. 5-6; P15-18). Accordingly, the presently claimed ribbon bonding connection recited below of:
“…the first surrounding annual negative terminal is directly connected to the second positive terminal of the second cylindrical battery cell via ribbon bond…”
is not taught in the provisional such that the claims are not accorded the provisional application date. It is noted this is only one limitation that is not supported by the provisional application; the claim as a whole is not supported by the provisional.
If future claim amendments are alleged to be supported by the provisional, citation thereto should be provided by paragraph number such that an accurate effective filing date can be accorded to the claims which is foundational to searching (i.e., determining what is prior art and what is not).
It is noted that the non-provisional application 17/940,396 includes additional drawings and written description, including Fig. 3B illustrating the claimed feature of:
“…the first surrounding annual negative terminal is directly connected to the second positive terminal of the second cylindrical battery cell via ribbon bond…”
PNG
media_image1.png
609
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This figure does not exist in the provisional, and no written description of the quoted feature is found within the provisional.
Specification & Drawings
The prior Office Action objections to the specification and drawings are updated to reflect the amendments made and withdrawn in view of the amendments filed to the claims and specification.
Specification
4. The amendment to the specification filed 4/30/2026 is objected to because Applicant does not appropriate make amendments to the specification as outlined under CFR 1.121. The amendment filed on 4/30/2026 fails to underline the text added to each of the paragraphs (see section (b)(1)(ii)), reproduced below):
(1) Amendment to delete, replace, or add a paragraph. Amendments to the specification, including amendment to a section heading or the title of the invention which are considered for amendment purposes to be an amendment of a paragraph, must be made by submitting:
(i) An instruction, which unambiguously identifies the location, to delete one or more paragraphs of the specification, replace a paragraph with one or more replacement paragraphs, or add one or more paragraphs;
(ii) The full text of any replacement paragraph with markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived;…
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following: P22 of the specification recites, “In some embodiments, the process of Fig. 1 is performed by a battery pack…” The process of Fig. 1 is a flowchart illustrating an embodiment of a process for providing a system that includes cylindrical battery cells, a bonding plate, and a TMS plate (P22). This process is not performed by a battery pack; this is not possible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The prior Office Action objections to claims 1 and 8 are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to for lack of concision (Article 6: claims should be clear and concise). It appears that Applicant may be defining a given end of a battery cell with three distinctive terms which is cumbersome and confusing. Moreover, MPEP 608.01(o) notes that a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted. The following lists out what are believed to be three terms all defining the same thing for each set of terms:
a first end, “the first end corresponds to a top end…” and “…one end of the first cylindrical battery cell…”
a second end, “the second end corresponds to a bottom end…” and “one end of the…”
Appropriate correction is required. An Examiner-Proposed Correction is found below.
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to for lack of concision (Article 6: claims should be clear and concise). The claims each recite, “…a ribbon that is used in the ribbon bond” which should simply be “…
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The prior Office Action rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-7, and claim 8, and thus dependent claims 9-14, 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 are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
The prior Office Action rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-7, and claim 8, and thus dependent claims 9-14, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed.
The amendments filed necessitate the following new grounds of rejection against the amended claims under both 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph:
10a. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-7; and claim 8, and thus dependent claims 9-14, 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.
An Examiner-Proposed Correction is found below that corrects claim 1. Correction is still required for claim 8.
Claim 1 is drawn to a system, and claim 8 is drawn to a process of making the system. All rejections applied to claim 1 are simultaneously applied to claim 8.
A) Claim 1 recites:
“each cylindrical battery cell has a first end and a second end;
the first end corresponds to a top end; and
the second end corresponds to a bottom end;..”
If each cylindrical battery cell (of the defined plurality of cylindrical battery cells) has a first end and a second end, then the italicized portions of the claim are indefinite as it is not clear which of the (intrinsic) plural first ends presented is considered the first end. Likewise, it is not clear which of the intrinsic (plural) second ends presented is considered the second end.
B) Claim 1 as amended recites the following:
“each cylindrical battery cell has a first end and a second end; the first end corresponds to a top end; and the second end corresponds to a bottom end...”
The claim then recites, wherein:
“one end of the first cylindrical battery cell includes…”
“one end of the second cylindrical battery cell includes…”
It is not clear from the claim terms whether the “one end of the first cylindrical battery cell…” is an altogether new end/entity of the first cylindrical battery, or if the claim is meant to define one end of the first end or the second end of the first cylindrical battery cell…
The same is true of “one end of the second cylindrical battery cell includes…”: it is not clear if this one end is an altogether new end/entity of the second cylindrical battery, or if the claim is meant to define one end of the first end or the second end of the second cylindrical battery cell. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite.
C) The above issue compounds at the following newly added limitations:
“the one end of the first cylindrical battery cell and the one end of the second cylindrical battery cell correspond to the same end;”
The Examiner is not clear on the meaning of this limitation. The first and second cylindrical batteries are distinctive entities; it is not clear how their respective “one ends” can correspond to the same end. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite.
D) The above issue then further compounds at the following newly added limitation:
“the one end corresponds to the first end or the second end…”
The claim fails to invoke proper antecedent basis at this juncture as there is a defined “one end of the first cylindrical battery cell” and “one end of the second cylindrical battery…” Accordingly, it is not clear which of the two options is being referenced here at “the one end.”
The above quoted language is further problematic because the claims define that each cylindrical battery cell has a first end and a second end.” Accordingly, it is not clear which of the multiple first ends is referenced by “the first end” or which of the multiple second ends is referenced by “the second line” quoted above.
Appropriate correction is required.
10b. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-7; and claim 8, and thus dependent claims 9-14, claim 12; and claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
An Examiner-Proposed Correction is found below that corrects claim 1. Correction is still required for claims 8, 12, and 13.
Claim 1 is drawn to a system, and claim 8 is drawn to a process of making the system. All rejections applied to claim 1 are simultaneously applied to claim 8.
A) Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis added by bolding:
A system, comprising:
a plurality of cylindrical battery cells that have a uniform orientation, wherein:
the plurality of cylindrical battery cells include a first cylindrical battery cell and a second cylindrical battery cell;
the plurality of cylindrical battery cells are arranged in a plurality of columns,
each cylindrical battery cell has a first end and a second end;
the first end corresponds to a top end; and
the second end corresponds to a bottom end;
a thermal management and structural (TMS) plate that is disposed at the second end of each cylindrical battery cell of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells; and
a bonding plate that is disposed at the first end of each cylindrical battery cell of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells, wherein:
one end of the first cylindrical battery cell includes a first center positive terminal and a first surrounding annular negative terminal;
one end of the second cylindrical battery cell includes a second center positive terminal and a second surrounding annular negative terminal;
the one end of the first cylindrical battery cell and the one end of the second cylindrical battery cell correspond to the same end;
the one end corresponds to the first end or the second end;
the one end of the first cylindrical battery cell and the one end of the second cylindrical battery cell are both facing the same direction;
and the first surrounding annular negative terminal is directly connected to the second center positive terminal of the second cylindrical battery cell via a ribbon bond.
The disclosure does not support the claim as presented and newly amended. The language above is not found within the written description. Applicant points to P23, P41 and Figs. 3A-3B. These paragraphs do not support the language presented.
The claim defines that the bonding plate 200 is disposed at the first end of each cylindrical battery cell of the plurality of plurality of battery cells. The electrical connections of the ribbon bonding as described in the instant application occur at the bonding plate 200 via the positive or negative terminals of each cylindrical battery cell (P21, 25, 38, 41; Figs. 2, 3A-3B). Accordingly, “the one end” (of either or both of the first and/or second cylindrical battery cell1) cannot correspond to “the second end” as claimed. “The second end” (or rather, the second end of each of the cylindrical battery cell of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells) is where the TMS is disposed (Fig. 2); the electrical connections being made do not occur at this location, and are never described or illustrated as occurring at this location (P21, 25, 38, 41; Figs. 2, 3A-3B). Fig. 2 is provided below with annotations for clarity:
PNG
media_image2.png
476
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
B) It is also not clear how it is possible or supported that the one end of the first cylindrical battery cell and the one end of the second cylindrical battery cell correspond to the same end given they are distinctive entities from one another. Accordingly, the claims fail the written description requirement for this additional reason.
C) Claim 8 was amended to reflect a method of providing a system that includes cylindrical battery cells, a bonding plate, and a thermal managenet and structural (TMS) plate (P22; Fig. 1). Claims 12 and 13 each define that the method is performed by an electrical vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. An eVTOL aircraft cannot possibly perform the method steps recited. Accordingly, the claims violate the written description requirement.
Appropriate correction is required. As previously noted, future claim amendments should be accompanied with comments that specifically point out support for any claim amendments. See MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
Compact Prosecution Examiner Rewritten Claims
11. The claims as presented are again indefinite to the point of precluding prosecution. Given the repeated presentation of claims both indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph and not supported by under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph, the Examiner has presented a proposed claim 1 below which is not marked-up given lack of time and given it is not a standard practice at the USPTO for the Examiner to rewrite a claim such that it is examinable for prior art examination. Claim 8 is not re-written, but it will be examined as if it recited a method comprising providing the constituents below of the Examiner-Proposed Claim 1. Claims 12-13 will not have a prior art rejection because they appear impossible to meet.
Examiner-Proposed Claim 1:
A system, comprising:
a plurality of cylindrical battery cells that have a uniform orientation, wherein:
the plurality of cylindrical battery cells include a first cylindrical battery cell and a second cylindrical battery cell;
the plurality of cylindrical battery cells are arranged in a plurality of columns,
each of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells has a top end and a bottom end;
a thermal management and structural (TMS) plate disposed at the respective bottom end of each cylindrical battery cell of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells; and
a bonding plate disposed at the respective top end of each respective cylindrical battery cell of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells, wherein:
the top end of the first cylindrical battery cell includes a first center positive terminal and a first surrounding annular negative terminal;
the top end of the second cylindrical battery cell includes a second center positive terminal and a second surrounding annular negative terminal;
the top end of the first cylindrical battery cell and the top end of the second cylindrical battery cell are both facing the same direction; and
the first surrounding annular negative terminal of the first cylindrical battery cell is directly connected to the second center positive terminal of the second cylindrical battery cell via a ribbon bond.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. Rejection A: The Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8 and claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695)2.
Regarding the Examiner-Proposed Claim 1, Lane teaches a teaches a system (Figs. 1-6; entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
a plurality of cylindrical battery cells 105 that have a uniform orientation (P12; Figs. 1-3, 5-6), wherein:
the plurality of cylindrical battery cells 105 include a first cylindrical battery cell and a second cylindrical battery cell (Figs. 1-3),
the plurality of cylindrical battery cells 105 are arranged in a plurality of columns (P12; Figs. 1-3),
each of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells 105 has a top end and a bottom end (Figs. 1-3);
“a thermal management and structural (TMS) plate” 165 disposed at the bottom end of each respective cylindrical battery cell of the plurality of cylindrical battery cells (Figs. 1-2; P32); and
a flexible printed circuit 120 (“bonding plate”) disposed at the respective top end of each cylindrical battery cell of the plurality of cylindrical battery ells (Figs. 1-2; P29, 34-45), wherein:
the top end of the first cylindrical battery cell includes a first center positive terminal 140 and a first surrounding annular negative terminal 145 (P12, 31; Figs. 2-3, 5);
the top end of the second cylindrical battery cell includes a second center positive terminal 140 and a second surrounding annular negative terminal 145 (P12, 31; Figs. 2-3, 5);
the top end of the first cylindrical battery cell and the top end of the second cylindrical battery cell are both facing the same direction (Figs. 2-3, 5); and
the first surrounding annular negative terminal of the first cylindrical battery cell is directly connected to the second center positive terminal of the second cylindrical battery cell via a ribbon bond (see Fig. 5 - 400 is described as being a flexible printed circuit 400 having the format shown reasonably construed as a ribbon bond- P34-45 and describes the construct as being distinct from conventional wire bonding (P36)), the direct connection circled below:
PNG
media_image3.png
542
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
464
461
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding the Examiner-proposed claim 8, Lane teaches all of the constituents claimed within the Examiner-proposed claim 1 such that a method comprising providing said constituents is considered intrinsic to the taught configuration.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Lane teaches wherein a ribbon that is used in the ribbon bond may made of copper (P35)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. Rejection B: The Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8 and claims 3-4 and 10-11 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) in view of Kwag (US 2021/0167345)3.
Regarding the Examiner-Proposed Claim 1, the entire rejection above is entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here. The Examiner takes the position that Fig. 5 of Lane illustrates, and Lane describes (P34-35) the flexible printed circuit 400 having the format shown reasonably construed as a ribbon bond and describes the construct as being distinct from conventional wire bonding (P36).
In the instant that it can be fairly demonstrated with appropriate explanation and/or objective evidence that the flexible printed circuit 400 is not a ribbon bond (not conceded), the following compact prosecution rejection is made.
In the same field of endeavor of a battery pack wiring together a plurality of cylindrical battery cells, Kwag teaches that with respect to conductive means by which electrical connections can be made, that a conductive wire (the described conventional means taught by Lane) or a conductive ribbon may be utilized, wherein a conductive ribbon has a higher mechanical strength than a conductive wire (P129).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to implement a conductive ribbon (“a ribbon bond”) for the flexible printed circuit 400 electrical connections being made among the plurality of cylindrical cells given such a technique and construct are known in the art as taught by Kwag and provide the taught, advantageous and predictable result of providing an electrical connection with higher mechanical strength (P129).
Regarding the Examiner-proposed claim 8, Lane teaches all of the constituents claimed within the Examiner-proposed claim 1 such that a method comprising providing said constituents is considered intrinsic to the taught configuration.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Lane teaches wherein the flexible printed circuit 120 (“bonding plate”) is made of aluminum or copper (i.e., at least flexible printed circuit 400 is made of copper – P35), and has an overall thickness of less than 0.3 mm (P12; note each layer is taught as having a thickness less than 0.1 mm such that 0.1 x 3 = 0.3). The claimed range is, “within a range of 0.5 [mm] and 2 mm, inclusive.” A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05):
Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.");
See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0);
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%);
In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°);
In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical).
Accordingly, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence exists for the claimed range, the above teaching of 0.3 mm or less is considered to render obvious the claimed range of 0.5 [mm] – 2 mm, inclusive given there is no showing that the claimed range is critical.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Lane teaches wherein a ribbon that is used in the ribbon bond may made of copper (P35).
14. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) as applied to at least Rejection A above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Lane teaches wherein the flexible printed circuit 120 (“bonding plate”) is made of aluminum or copper (i.e., at least flexible printed circuit 400 is made of copper – P35), and has an overall thickness of less than 0.3 mm (P12; note each layer is taught as having a thickness less than 0.1 mm such that 0.1 x 3 = 0.3). The claimed range is, “within a range of 0.5 [mm] and 2 mm, inclusive.” A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05):
Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.");
See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0);
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%);
In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°);
In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical).
Accordingly, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence exists for the claimed range, the above teaching of 0.3 mm or less is considered to render obvious the claimed range of 0.5 [mm] – 2 mm, inclusive given there is no showing that the claimed range is critical.
15. Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection A above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8; OR
Rejection B above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8,
and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2021/0249710).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Lane fails to disclose the TMS plate (cooling system 165) (see Fig. 1) is made of aluminum and has a thickness that is within a range of 1 mm and 10 mm, inclusive. In the same field of endeavor, Kimura teaches analogous art of a cooling plate and battery structure in which a cooling plate 1/3 is provided to promote heat transfer away from the lithium ion battery module 9 comprising a plurality of cells 11 (Figs. 1, 4, 5A-5B), the cooling plate 1/3 is taught as being made of a metal species having excellent heat conductivity with aluminum exemplified (P74), and is further taught as having a thickness of 0.5-30 mm, preferably 0.5-20 mm in consideration of heat conductivity, strength, and lightness (P74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known options for a TMS plate (cooling system 165) (see Fig. 1) as taught by Lane, and to select the specific construct of Kimura comprised of aluminum and having a thickness range overlapping with that claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists, given Kimura teaches that aluminum has excellent heat conductivity and the taught thickness range is in consideration of heat conductivity, strength, and lightness (P74). Moreover, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); MPEP 2144.07.
16. Claims 3 and 10 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection A above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8; OR
Rejection B above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8,
and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0389318).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Lane teaches wherein the flexible printed circuit 120 (“bonding plate”) is made of aluminum or copper (i.e., at least flexible printed circuit 400 is made of copper – P35), and has an overall thickness of less than 0.3 mm (P12; note each layer is taught as having a thickness less than 0.1 mm such that 0.1 x 3 = 0.3). The claimed range is, “within a range of 0.5 [mm] and 2 mm, inclusive.” A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05) (see additional case law above not repeated here).
Additionally, Lee teaches analogous art of a flexible printed circuit board 20 for use with a battery pack and that the total thickness should be 2 mm or less in order to be flexible (P123). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine a workable or optimum thickness value/range of flexible printed circuit 120 (“bonding plate”) of Lane in order that it is thin enough to maintain its flexibility, while thick enough to have sufficient insulation around the conductive internal layer, and to look to known, suitable ranges in the prior art for such a layer including the range taught by Lee (P123) which provides a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of the taught range that overlaps with the claimed range. Moreover, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
17. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection A above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8; OR
Rejection B above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8,
and further in view of Long et al. (US 2022/0127011)4.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Lane fails to explicitly teach wherein the system is included in an electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft that includes: (1) a fixed wing, (2) at least one pusher tiltrotor, and (3) at least one tractor tiltrotor.
Long teaches analogous art of a battery pack that is included in and powers an electrically powered vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft (P13, 23, 25) that includes a fixed wing 120, 125; at least one pusher tiltrotor (see rear tiltrotors 105(7)-105(12)) and at least one tractor tiltrotor (see front tiltrotors (105(1)-105(6)) (Figs. 1A-1B; corresponding disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system including the high-voltage battery pack of Lane within an electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft that includes: (1) a fixed wing, (2) at least one pusher tiltrotor, and (3) at least one tractor tiltrotor as taught by Long in order to provide the predictable result of a purpose for the high-voltage battery pack (i.e., to power the eVTOL), the combination known in the art and allowing for the aircraft to be electrically powered.
18. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection A above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8; OR
Rejection B above as applied to at least Examiner-Proposed Claims 1 and 8,
and further in view of Matejek et al. (US 2012/0251866).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Lane fails to teaches the system and method recited in claims 1 and 8, respectively, further including a reusable battery disconnect unit (BDU) and thus the provision thereof. In the same field of endeavor, Matejek teaches analogous art of a BDU and battery pack using same that is used to selectively couple the battery to the load and/or the charging system (abstract; entire disclosure). The battery pack is on a vehicle and the selective coupling/decoupling is repeatable (i.e., The BDU is “reuseable”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to implement the reuseable BDU of Matejek within the system of Lane in order to provide the predictable results that the battery pack may be selectively coupled between a load and charging system such that it may be functional to provide power output and accomplish its intended purpose, while being able to recharge.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant's response filed 4/30/2026 was received. The Examiner practiced compact prosecution in the last Office Action by analyzing the prior art to Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) against claim 1 as best as possible (see pages 16-17 of the prior Office Action). The following was specifically noted on page 25:
“A future response should specifically point out what is absent from the Lane reference within future amended claims given as best understood by the Examiner, there does not appear to be any form of patentably distinguishing feature in the claim over Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) versus the construct shown in the instant application Figures 3A-3B as analyzed above.”
Applicant makes no comments whatsoever as to the prior art analysis made against Lane
et al. (US 2014/0212695) in the response filed. The reference is now formally applied against the Examiner-proposed claims.
The Examiner also provided a body of prior art with respect to the features presented and how they are met by other prior art references as well; no comments are provided in the response filed as to how the claims avoid these references.
Conclusion
20. Additional pertinent prior art cited previously is reproduced below:
With respect to a positive terminal and negative terminal being located at one end and having respective surfaces in a same virtual plane, the construct is well-known and common place in the art. See at least Ahn et al. (US 2021/0203028):
PNG
media_image5.png
652
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to the type of electrical connection being made in Fig. 3B (i.e., a positive terminal of one cell connected to a negative terminal of another cell), it is a known technique to provide a first polarity terminal 180 of one cell connected to a second, opposite polarity terminal of another cell using a ribbon bond conductive connection 230 as taught by Trester et al. (US 2010/0015519) (at least Fig. 4), with both polarity terminals being on one end of each respective cell. Trester teaches the ribbon bonding conductive member 230 shown below making a connection between first polarity 180 of the right cell to second, opposite polarity 190 of the left cell, with both polarity terminals being on one end of each respective cell:
PNG
media_image6.png
351
476
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A person having ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize wire bonding and ribbon (or strip) bonding as functionally equivalent alternatives as taught by Broekelmann et al. (US 2021/0194102)
PNG
media_image7.png
97
375
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the use of conductive ribbon bonding versus conductive wire has the known, predictable advantage of providing higher mechanical strength than the conductive wire as taught by Kwag (US 2021/0167345) (P129) such that there is necessary teaching, suggestion, and motivation to replace wire bonds with ribbon/strip bonds.
See also Seol et al. (US 2021/0028431) teaching the same (“..bonding wires or bonding ribbons may be used as connectors 105”) with Fig. 4 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image8.png
538
645
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See also Yasui eta l. (US 2011/0177365)
Broekelmann et al. (US 2021/0194102) teaching that the electrical connections 4 shown below with strip connector 4 between a positive and negative terminal of adjacent cells:
PNG
media_image9.png
421
496
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The provision of a TMS plate disposed at the second planar surface of a plurality of cylindrical cells opposite the electrical connection occuring on the first planar surface (where both terminals of each cell exist) is well-known in the art and taught by Wynn et al. (US 2020/0153057).
See also Zeiler et al. (US 2022/0045395); Weis (US 2022/0181732); Capati et al. (US 2019/0081294).
21. 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.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)second paragraph
2 The Examiner previously outlined on pages 16-17 of the prior Office Action how Lane was considered to meet the Examiner’s best understanding of the examinable subject matter of the prior indefinite claim and pointed out there does not appear to be any patentably distinguishing feature in the claim over Lane et al. (US 2014/0212695) versus the construct shown in the instant application Figures 3A-3B, and noted a distinguishing feature should be added to the claim to obviate a future rejection. No such amendment was made or clarifying response as to how Applicant believes Lane doesn’t meet the claim currently presented.
3 Previously cited and described in pertinent prior art sections of prior Office Actions.
4 Found via searching a similar application of the instant Applicant’s (US app. no.17/831,210) that was applied to similar claims reciting similar subject matter.
Prosecution Insights