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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I with claims 1-6 in the reply filed on November 12th, 2025, is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 7-25, due to being drawn to a non-elected invention are not examined in this current office action.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 states in line 7 of the claim, the through-hole opening (4da, 4ea) are arranged “offset in a direction of the longitudinal axis”. The definition of “offset”, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “something that serves to counter balance or compensate for something else”. Based on applicant’s disclosure in the instant specification and figures 2 and 3A, the through-hole opening (4da, 4ea) are interpreted as serving to counter balance each other along the longitudinal axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiramitsu et al, JP 2018018661 A (as cited in IDS and English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiramitsu discloses a conductive member (Hiramitsu, 1; figure 1), corresponding to the battery cell connection element of the claim, with a cooling function [Hiramitsu, 0011], including a bus bar (Hiramitsu, 10; figure 1), formed of a conductive pipe P (Hiramitsu, P; figure 3), including a coolant flow portion (Hiramitsu, 16; figure 3), through which coolant can flow [Hiramitsu, 0022], corresponding to the main body formed as a fluid line element made of an electrically conductive material as required by claim 1, with a longitudinal axis as shown in figure 1 of Hiramitsu. The bus bar includes a terminal portion (Hisamitsu, 12; figure 1) on each side of the bus bar, at the terminal positions, the opposing inner surfaces of the pipe P are in close contact with each other and are closed, not open [Hiramitsu, 0013]. Each connection portion (Hisamitsu, 11; figure 1) has a through-hole (Hiramitsu, 14; figure 1) [Hiramitsu, 0013]. As shown in figure 1 of Hiramitsu, the through holes are arranged on the same side of the bus bar, and are arranged next to each other and off set in a direction of the longitudinal axis (see claim interpretation section above).
Regarding Claim 2, Hiramitsu discloses the battery cell connection element of claim 1, wherein the bus bar (Hiramitsu, 10; figure 1), corresponding to the main body of the claim, includes the terminal portion (Hiramitsu, 12; figure 1), with a flat plate shape that has been flattened [Hiramitsu, 0013], corresponding to the substantially planar portions of the main body, wherein one surface, such as the top surface or the bottom surface, of the terminal portions are aligned with the through-holes (Hiramitsu, 14; figure 1) in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis as shown in figure 1 of Hiramitsu.
Regarding Claim 4, Hisamitsu discloses the battery cell connection element of claim 1, wherein the bus bar (Hiramitsu, 10; figure 1), includes the terminal portions (Hiramitsu, 12; figure 1) that have been flattened so the inner surfaces are in close contact with each other, and they are closed, not open [Hiramitsu, 0013].
Regarding Claim 6, Hiramitsu discloses the battery cell connection element of claim 1, wherein the through-holes (Hiramitsu, 14; figure 1) that at the center thereof penetrate from one surface to the other [Hiramitsu, 0014], corresponding to the claimed clear opening cross-section, through which a bolt B, corresponding to the tool of the claim, is inserted through and tightened [Hiramitsu, 0020], further, Hiramitsu discloses the connection portions (Hiramitsu, 11; figure 1) comprising the through-holes, can be welded or soldered [Hiramitsu, 0033], indicating the ability to insert a tool within the through-holes
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramitsu et al, JP 2018018661 A (as cited in IDS and English translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hulstrung, Joachim, WO 2019037848 A1 (English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 3, Hiramitsu teaches the battery cell connection element of claim 1, but is silent to teach on the cross-section of the main body being oval.
Hulstrung teaches a temperature control device for a battery module, including at least one flow control element (Hulstrung, 8; figure 3) [Hulstrung, 0010], wherein the flow control elements guide temperature control medium through [Hulstrung, 0020]. The flow control element can be designed as a hollow component [Hulstrung, 0042], comprising a single recess with an oval cross-section [Hulstrung, 0040], as shown in figure 5c of Hulstrung.
Hulstrung and Hiramitsu are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the bus bar of Hiramitsu, corresponding to the main body of the claim, to have an oval cross-section as taught by Hulstrung because such modification would make it possible to adjust the pressure of the temperature control medium in the interior without changing the upper and lower hosing parts, thus maintaining the same manufacturing effort for both part [Hulstrung, 0011].
Moreover, according MPEP 2144.04, IV, B, changing the shape of the main body is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed main body is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramitsu et al, JP 2018018661 A (as cited in IDS and English translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Grobe et al, US 20120100761 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Hiramitsu teaches the battery cell connection element of claim 1, wherein the bus bar (Hiramitsu, 10; figure 1) shows two substantially identical halves along the longitudinal axis in figure 1 of Hiramitsu, but is silent to teach on a central portion of a modified shape arrange, in which the central portion has at least one peripheral bellows corrugation formed integrally with a remainder of the main body.
Grobe teaches a battery cell connector, in which at least two batteries are electrically connected [Grobe, 0086], in which figure 2a of Grobe shows a battery cell connector comprising mutually separated ribs that are of a corrugate shape [Grobe, 0112], on either side of the battery cell connector. The ribs, formed in the corrugated shape, can be formed by stamping, cutting, laser cutting, water-jet cutting, such that the ribs are formed in the connecting part [Grobe, 0029], therefore, they are formed integrally with the main body.
Grobe and Hiramitsu are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the bus bar of Hiramitsu to include the corrugated longitudinal section of the connecting part as taught by Grobe because such modification increases the flexibility of the connecting part and thereby increased the elasticity in at least two spatial directions [Grobe, 0054].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights