DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-04-27, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 8-11, and 15-17 have been amended; Claim 5 has been canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are pending; claim 17 being withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 7-16 and 18 are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended to require that the battery management housing has “an open side” and that the electronics arrangement is connected “to the bracket and on the open side of the battery management housing.” The specification as filed does not refer to “an open side” at all. Applicant’s arguments appear to indicate that the “open side” is the opening in the container 23 shown in Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
926
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
592
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As Fig 4 shows, the inserted “electronics” components extend the entire length of the BMM housing 23. While component 27 is described as an “electronics arrangement” in the specification, that component appears to be an electronic interface, and is described as an “interconnector” between further electronic components (¶ 0070-0072). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase is that it refers to anything related to electronics, including connectors. But connectors are always going to be positioned near an opening, because that is the closest point of access. Moreover, any electronics components inserted into an accommodation space are going to have some part, even if only wires or connectors, that are going to be near the “opening” and hence near the “opening side,” if they are going to be connected to the system at all. It is therefore unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are—does it require some more particular “electronics arrangement”? in what sense can it be said to further delimit the claims at all in comparison to claims without said limitation? The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1. The claims have been interpreted to require an electronic component inserted through an open side of an accommodation space.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2009/0253027 to Yang et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Yang teaches:
a battery management arrangement (abstract)
comprising a battery management module 200 (¶ 0030, Fig. 1)
a battery management housing 100, having an opening framed by O-ring 700, the housing further comprising a bracket 480 retaining the BMM and an electronics arrangement 300 on the open side of the BMM housing and connected to further electronic components on the PCB 200 (Fig. 1, ¶ 0032)
the bracket being “configured to slidably receive the BMM via the open side” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase, since the BMM can slide in through the opening (Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image3.png
590
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 6-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (DE 102012107866 to Fritz, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Yang (US 2009/0253027 to Yang et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Fritz teaches:
a battery module 12 comprising a housing with a removable housing section, including at least module walls, and known in the art to include e.g. a cover, or removable section, so that battery cells can be inserted/removed (Fig. 2, ¶ 0014)
PNG
media_image4.png
592
748
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a plurality of battery cells 15 accommodated within the housing and a battery management arrangement (Fig. 3, ¶ 0019)
a battery management housing 18 retaining sensors and other management components therein, placed between two of the battery cells, and comprising an electronics arrangement for connecting the various components arranged at a top side with an opening, perpendicular to the stacking direction (Fig. 3, ¶ 0016-0019)
Fritz does not explicitly teach:
a “bracket” in the battery management housing 18
Arguably, the sensors and electronic components in the dummy cell 18 comprise a “battery management module” within a broadly reasonable interpretation, being a “modular” part of a battery management system. Fritz, however, does not explicitly teach a circuit board capable of monitoring the batteries, instead teaching that other management circuit components are provided elsewhere, including in “control device” 21 positioned between modules, as seen in Fig. 1 (¶ 0019).
Yang, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery management module 200, teaches providing a housing with a bracket 480 retaining the BMM and an electronics arrangement including electronic components on the PCB 200 and connector 300 (Fig. 1, Fig. 0032).
PNG
media_image3.png
590
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a BMM, like that found in Yang, within the dummy cell housing 18 of Fritz, with the motivation to save space in a battery module. It further would have been obvious to provide the opening with the electronics arrangement directed upward, as disclosed in Fritz. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Regarding Claim 6, Fritz does not explicitly teach:
the material for the dummy cell housing
Metal, such as aluminum, was a common battery cell housing material because it offers high strength at low weight, important in a dense battery pack under compression. Similarly, it was common in the art to make housing components near electrical connections out of polymer in order to minimize the risk of electrical short circuit. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to make the dummy cell housing out of a metal like aluminum, with the motivation to provide a thermally conductive, light weight, rigid material, and to make the BMM housing out of a polymer, as was common in the art, absent any explicit teaching in Fritz and/or Yang.
Regarding Claim 7, Fritz does not explicitly teach:
the width of the housing of the dummy cell
A few mm of aluminum was common in the art for cell housings. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and MPEP 2144 IV. A. It would have been obvious to provide a dummy cell housing thickness within the claimed range absent a showing of criticality.
Regarding Claim 8, Fritz teaches:
a dummy cell housing defining a top opening along which the bracket of Yang would be slidably insertable into the housing, similar to a cell (Fig. 3)
Alternatively, Yang teaches a bracket structure, including a step for supporting the circuit board 200, that is shown as integral with the housing, but would have been obvious to make as a separate structure that is slidably insertable in the housing. Making separable what had previously been non-portable or unmovable has been found to be obvious. See In re Lindberg, 194 F. 2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); and MPEP § 2144.02 V, A [R-5]. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, Fritz teaches:
the accommodation axis for the cells and sensors in the stack being perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the module walls, i.e. the stacking direction of the cells, including a removable cover common in the housing art
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Yang teaches:
a bracket axis along which the BMM is slidably insertable into the bracket, the axis being perpendicular to the longitudinal or stacking direction of the housing
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a BMM, like that found in Yang, within the dummy cell housing 18 of Fritz, with the motivation to save space in a battery module. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Regarding Claim 12, Yang teaches:
the bracket having an opening configured to retain the BMM (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a BMM, like that found in Yang, within the dummy cell housing 18 of Fritz, with the motivation to save space in a battery module. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Regarding Claim 13, Yang teaches:
a connector casing 300 for electrical connectors housed therein to interconnect the BMM and the electronics arrangement (¶ 0030-0032)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a BMM, like that found in Yang, within the dummy cell housing 18 of Fritz, with the motivation to save space in a battery module. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Regarding Claim 14, Fritz teaches:
a battery pack comprising a plurality of the battery modules (Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 15, Fritz teaches:
use in a vehicle (¶ 0011)
Regarding Claim 18, Fritz teaches:
a battery pack for a vehicle (¶ 0002)
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (DE 102012107866 to Fritz, the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Yang (US 2009/0253027 to Yang et al.) and Lee (US 2017/0054186 to Lee).
Regarding Claims 2-4, Fritz teaches:
a battery management housing, or dummy cell 18, housing battery management components, between two stacked cells (Fig. 3)
Fritz does not explicitly teach:
the dummy cell 18 comprising a bracket retaining the BMM
the battery management arrangement/components comprising an encasing removably arranged within the bracket and retaining the BMM (claim 2)
wherein the encasing comprises a plurality of encasing sections (claim 3)
the encasing comprising an encasing fastener to fasten the encasing to the bracket (claim 4)
Lee, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery cell stack, with a dummy/pseudo cell housing in the middle of a stack, accommodating management components including a sensor, teaches that the dummy cell includes brackets 125/126 on both short sides of the housing 122b/d for fastening to neighboring cells and thereby retaining the management components within the cell stack (Figs. 2 and 3, ¶ 0039).
PNG
media_image5.png
556
586
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
696
530
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yang regarding a battery management module 200, teaches providing a housing with a bracket 480 retaining the BMM and an electronics arrangement including electronic components on the PCB 200 and connector 300 (Fig. 1, Fig. 0032).
PNG
media_image3.png
590
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yang teaches a battery management arrangement comprising an encasing 400/500 removably arrangeable in a battery pack, including in an empty dummy cell like that disclosed in Fritz and Lee. Yang further teaches a plurality of encasing sections 400 and 500, and teaches mounting the housing in the case via what would have been understood to be “fasteners” for mounting (and suggested by the unnumbered mounting brackets on the sides of the bottom case 400—Fig. 1, ¶ 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a BMM, like that found in Yang, having a plurality of encasing parts, and provided an encasing fastener/mounting part for mounting within the dummy cell housing 18 of Fritz, with the motivation to save space in a battery module. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6].
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-04-27 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the newly amended features. The claims are now rejected for indefiniteness under § 112. The argument that Yang does not teach a stack or show the location of the BMM within a stack does not appear to engage with the combination logic supporting the obviousness rejection. Fritz clearly shows a dummy cell with BMM components, the cell having a top perpendicular to the stacking direction, through which electronic components are connected. Most cells in the art in such stacks were known to have top plates, and hence top opening sides. It would have been obvious to provide the opening side of such a dummy cell at the top. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights