DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 17 is withdrawn as pertaining to a non-elected method.
Claims 1-17 are pending and are examined herein. Claims 1-16 are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waterford (US Patent No. 9,647,471 to Waterford et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Waterford teaches:
a battery module comprising a housing with a removable housing portion 42a (i.e. the frame around the cell wafer) and a plurality of battery cells 42 accommodated within the housing (Fig. 5, column 8)
a battery management arrangement comprising a BMS wafer on a PCB 20 (column 7, Fig. 2)
a BMS housing 40 comprising a bracket joining the BMS having an electronics arrangement thereon to the cell stack (Fig. 5)
PNG
media_image1.png
626
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
650
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 16 is alternatively 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 comprising 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
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.
Claims 1 and 5-15 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
PNG
media_image5.png
746
644
media_image5.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 (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. 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 5, Yang renders obvious:
wherein the PCB and its electronics arrangement is mounted on the bracket 480 (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 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 an axis along which the bracket of Yang would be slidably insertable into the housing, similar to a cell (Fig. 3)
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)
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_image6.png
556
586
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
696
530
media_image7.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].
Conclusion
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