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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-11 are currently pending
Claims 1 and 4-8 are amended
Claims 2-3 and 12-18 have been cancelled
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 10 November 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 11 August 2025
The 102 rejections over Stafl have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections over Stafl in view of Reineccius, in view of Seol, and in view of Song are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Stafl in view of Reineccius further in view of Seol has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the initial recitation of “a first printed circuit board (PCB)” on line 4 does not match later recitations of “the first cell array PCB” on lines 10 and 12. Examiner suggests changing the first recitation on line 4 to read “a first cell array printed circuit board (PCB)” for consistency. Further, the last limitation of claim 1 that recites “the cell array PCBs” should instead read “the first and second cell array PCBs”.
In claim 7, “the first battery cell PCB and the second battery cell PCB” should instead read “the first cell array PCB and second cell array PCB” for consistency with previously established recitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-11 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.
Claim 1 claims the primary PCB being mechanically and electrically connected via soldering to the first cell array PCB and the second cell array PCB. However, although the primary PCB is taught to be mechanically and electrically connected to the first and second cell array PCBs at [instant 0039], there are no further examples provided as to what connection methods would be applicable and no teaching of mechanically and electrically connecting the first and second battery cell array PCBs to the primary PCB via soldering. Further, the only mention of soldering is in relation to the solder pins for the board-to-board connection, rather than soldering being a direct connection method on its own. Claims 4-11 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim
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.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafl et al. (US 20190131672 A1), hereinafter Stafl, in view of Reineccius et al. (US 20160093843 A1), hereinafter Reineccius, further in view of Seol (US 20200083511 A1), hereinafter Seol.
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, Stafl teaches a battery 100 (Fig. 4) [0004] comprising:
a battery cell retention frame 110 (Fig. 1) [0025];
a first cell array 130A (Fig. 1), the first cell array 130A including cells 120 [0025] and a first flexible, as required by claim 7, printed circuit board (PCB) 160 (Fig. 6) electrically connected with sense leads associated with the cells 120 of the first cell array 130A [0036];
a second cell array 130B, the second cell array 130B including cells 120 [0025] and a second flexible, as required by claim 7, PCB 160, in this case varying numbers of branch FPCs 160 may be distributed at various positions along the length of an FPC 152 [0035], electrically connected with sense leads associated with the cells 120 of the second cell array 130B [0036];
a primary flexible, as required by claim 8, PCB 152A (Fig. 4) spanning the first and second cell arrays 130A and 130B, as seen in Fig. 4, the primary PCB 152A and the first cell array PCB 160 being mechanically and electrically connected, in this case through FPC connector 155 (Fig. 5), for the primary PCB 152A to receive electric signals indicative of the cells 120 of the first cell array 130A from the first cell array PCB 160, as taught in a signal flow path [0036], and primary PCB 152A and the second cell array PCB 160 being mechanically and electrically connected, in this case through FPC connector 155 (Fig. 5), for the primary PCB 152A to receive electric signals indicative of the cells 120 of the second cell array 130B from the second cell array PCB 160, as taught in a signal flow path [0036]; and
a rigid, as required by claim 6, battery sensor PCB 150 (Fig. 4) [0031], the battery sensor PCB 150 and the primary PCB 152A being mechanically and electrically connected via a board-to-board connector 151A for the battery sensor PCB 150 to receive the electric signals indicative of the cells 120 of the first and second cell arrays 130A and 130B from the primary PCB 152A, as taught in a signal flow path [0036], the battery sensor PCB 150 being configured to generate data representative of operating parameters of the cells 120 of the first and second cell arrays 130A and 130B based on the electric signals received from the primary PCB 152A. In this case the battery sensor PCB 150 is taught to monitor and control the battery module operation using voltage monitors and temperature monitoring circuits [0031]. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the battery sensor PCB 150 to be collecting and reading data points representative of operating parameters of the cells 120 of the first and second cell arrays 130A and 130B in order to determine the correct course of action in controlling the module. This is considered to be equivalent to the battery sensor PCB 150 being configured to generate data representative of operating parameters of the cells 120 of the first and second cell arrays 130A and 130B based on the electric signals received from the primary PCB 152A.
Stafl further teaches the cell array PCBs, the primary PCB, and the battery sensor PCB together defining a multi-level PCB network, as seen by the signal flow path that flows through each [0036].
Stafl teaches a battery cell retention frame 110 that the cell array PCBs 160 and the primary PCB 152A could be considered to be arranged entirely within because the frame extends past the components, as seen in Figs. 3 and 5 and the module does not need to be closed for the components to be considered to be arranged entirely within the frame. Stafl is silent as to the battery sensor PCB 150 being arranged entirely within the housing because a portion can be seen to extend past the retention frame, for example in Figs. 3 and 5. However, Reineccius teaches a modular battery pack 300 (Fig. 3) comprising a backplane assembly 406 and support panels 602 and 604 (Fig. 6) that is similar to the battery cell retention frame of Stafl and is then completely enclosed by panels [0044].
Stafl and Reineccius are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery modules comprising multiple cell arrays and PCBs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further enclose the battery cell retention frame 110 of Stafl with panels, as taught by Reineccius, in a way that the cell array PCBs 160, the primary PCB 152A, and the battery sensor PCB 150, are each arranged entirely within the housing. Doing so would have better protected the interior components and improved the safety of the module [Reineccius 0044].
Stafl is silent as to the cell array PCBs 160 being connected to the primary PCB 152A via soldering. However, Stafl teaches soldering as being a viable option for connecting to PCBs, for example voltage monitoring tabs 141 to the primary PCB 152A [0033] or collector plates 730 to alternate embodiment PCB 700 [0045]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the cell array PCBs 160 to the primary PCB 152A via soldering. The selection of a known material, in this case soldering, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case connecting something to a PCB, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Further, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the cell array PCBs 160 to the primary PCB 152A via soldering because soldering is a known technique and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way has been held to be prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143.I.C.3.
Stafl is silent as to the battery sensor PCB 150 being operable to wirelessly communicate with a remote controller. However, Seol teaches a battery management system that may include an analog front end B20 that converts measurement values into a quantized digital value and transmits them to a controller B10 [0074]. The act of converting the measurement into a digital quantized value and transmitting the value reads on the limitation of the battery sensor PCB being configured to wirelessly communicate data to a remote controller external to the housing for use by the controller in controlling the battery.
Stafl and Seol are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery packs including a plurality of battery cells and PCBs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery sensor PCB 150 of Stafl with the analog front end B20 of the PCB of Seol. Doing so would have allowed for easier control of the power switch based on the quantized measurements [0074].
Regarding claim 4, modified Stafl teaches the battery of claim 1. Stafl further teaches the board-to-board connector 151A being mounted on the battery sensor PCB 150, in this case in the form of the female end of the connector, with the primary PCB 152A being inserted into the board-to-board connector 151A, as the male end, and wrapped around to another side of module 100. Stafl is silent as to the board-to-board connector 151A being mounted on the primary PCB 152A. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the board-to-board connector 151A to have the female end mounted on the primary PCB 152A and the male end be a part of the battery sensor PCB 150 that is inserted into the board-to-board connector. Reversal or rearrangement of parts has been held to be prima facie obvious in cases where the overall operation of the device would not have been modified. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.A and MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
Regarding claim 5, modified Stafl teaches the battery of claim 3, wherein the primary PCB 152A is connected to the battery sensor PCB 150 using FPC connector 151A [0032]. Reineccius further teaches a rechargeable [0035] modular battery pack with multiple cell compartments [0020] where the PCBs are coupled together using a plurality of threaded standoffs 612 (Reineccius Fig. 6) [0056].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the standoffs taught by Reineccius on the primary PCB 152A of Stafl and attach the battery sensor PCB 150 thereto to be spaced apart from the primary PCB 152A. Doing so would have provided electrical paths and physical rigidity and strength to the battery module [Reineccius 0056].
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Stafl teaches the battery of claim 1. Stafl further teaches the sense leads being voltage sense leads 141a and 141b (Fig. 5), as required by claim 9 [0034], or temperature sense leads (not numbered), as required by claim 11 [0036], that are electrically connected to the first and second cell array PCBs 160 either directly, regarding temperature, or indirectly through the primary PCB 152A, regarding voltage. Stafl also teaches that cell group size may be varied to achieve various design specifications, like a particular current output, indicating that current may be monitored somehow. Stafl is silent as to the sense leads specifically being current sense leads. However, Seol teaches a rechargeable battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells [0005] and a current sensor R arranged on the charge/discharge path [0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stafl to include the current sensor R taught by Seol. Doing so would have allowed the system to catch abnormal situations and control the charge/discharge operation accordingly [Seol 0072].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Stafl does not disclose solder or board-to-board connections. Examiner respectfully disagrees as Stafl teaches both soldering and board-to-board connections as being feasible connection methods for connecting to PCBs. Further, soldering is a well-known connection technique that would have been obvious to use, see MPEP 2143.I.C.3, and connector 151A is used to connect a board to a board, thus qualifying as a board-to-board connector.
In response to applicant's argument that Stafl has a different functional arrangement, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the housing and an internal battery sensor PCB have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722