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, directed to claims 1-31 in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 32-42 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/04/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 is objected to due to using the acronym BMS, prior to reciting the acronym’s unabbreviated form. Here, though it is known in the art that BMS stands for “battery management system”, it is requested that the acronym be written out before it is presented in an abbreviated form, similarly to the format used for PCB in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-32 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.
The term “substantially low profile” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially low profile” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of this term renders the printed circuit board of claim 1 indefinite, as it is not clear what bounds of physical dimensions are needed to satisfy the scope of the claim. For the purpose of this office action, it is interpreted as requiring a flat section.
The term “high voltage” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high voltage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Here, the bounds of what voltage constitutes high voltage for the purpose of the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Additionally, Claims 2-31 are indefinite as a result of depending upon an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11-16, 18-29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dulle (US 2017/0324075 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Dulle discloses a battery module for a vehicle (Paragraph 0074, “an automobile (e.g., a car) having a battery system 20 in accordance with present embodiments”), the battery module 22 configured to operate as a part of a battery pack that includes a number of battery modules (Paragraph 0076, “FIG. 2 illustrates a cutaway schematic view of an embodiment of the xEV 10 of FIG. 1, provided in the form of an HEV having the battery system 20 , which includes one or more battery modules 22.”) and to deliver power over a substantially low profile printed circuit board flexible electrical conductor, where figure 6 depicts a printed circuit board (PCB) 58 which has flat sections (Paragraph 0086, “a printed circuit board (PCB) assembly 58”.).
Additionally, it is noted that where the limitation of the claim specifies that the battery module is “configured to” operate as a part of a battery pack, and to deliver power over a PCB flexible electrical conductor, these limitations represent intended use, and do not carry patentable weight. It is only required that the battery module of Dulle be capable of satisfying the intended use. Where Dulle’s battery module is configured to operate as a part of a battery pack that includes a number of battery modules (see paragraph 0087), and is connected to a PCB (See paragraph 0086), it is therefore capable of satisfying the intended use as presented in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the battery module is configured to be electrically connected in parallel with at least two other substantially similar battery modules to form the battery pack, shown in their figure 2, where the battery modules 22 are connected together. Additionally, where the limitation requires that the battery modules are “configured to be connected”, this limitation represents intended use, and it is only required that the battery modules of Dulles are capable of being connected together in parallel with at least two other substantially similar batteries to form the battery pack. As Dulles discloses connection between a plurality of battery modules 22, and connection method may either be series or parallel, with there being no significant structural differences in the requirements for each connection type, Dulle disclosing that the modules are connected thereby discloses that they are capable of being connected in parallel, satisfying the requirements of the intended use case of the claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle discloses that the battery module is configured to include an array of rechargeable cells 54, shown in their figure 12, and monitoring and control systems configured to enable to the battery module to operate using autonomous monitoring and control (Paragraph 0111, “the PCB 136 that provides control and monitoring functions to the battery module 22”), as well as being configured to be electrically connected to further battery modules, to form a complete battery pack, depicted in figure 2, where multiple battery modules 22 are connected.
Regarding Claim 5, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle discloses structure wherein the battery module is configured to operate as part of a battery pack that includes multiple identical such battery modules, this structure is depicted in Dulle’s figure 26, which indicates that their system comprises multiple instances of the battery module 22, here discussed as voltage source 169 and cited as being the battery system (Paragraph 0133, “battery pack voltage source 169 (e.g., the battery system 20 ).”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation that requires that each battery module has a size that conforms to a regular size interval scale and is part of a family of other types of components with sizing that also conforms to the same size interval scale, this limitation is interpreted as requiring that the battery modules and other surrounding components can be measured by a consistent measurement scale. As all components are capable of being measured by metric units, Dulle’s disclosure inherently satisfies the limitation of this claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, where the instant claim requires that the battery module including multiple components configured for robotic installation or assembly into a device or system by virtue of being positioned in the device or system in a regular rectilinear grid or installation pattern, this limitation is interpreted as requiring that Dulle’s battery module include components which are can be installed into a system in a regular rectilinear grid, or a regular installation pattern, and that said property means that they are configured for robotic installation or assembly. As any physical solid object can be placed in a regular pattern, and where Dulle’s battery modules 54 are placed in a regular pattern as shown in their figure 6, Dulle therefore discloses structure which reads upon the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the battery module is configured for robotic installation or assembly to the battery pack by virtue of having a shape that is optimized for robotic installation, this limitation is inherently satisfied by the Dulle, as the limitation does not provide any bounds on the type of robotic installation. As the full scope of robotic installation can include a robot designed specifically for the battery shape of Dulle’s battery module, Dulle’s battery module is therefore configured for that robotic installation or assembly to the battery pack by virtue of having a shape that is optimized for that robotic installation
Regarding Claim 11, Dulle teaches the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle discloses that their battery module includes a single outer shell or lid 52 that is configured to enclose an array of rechargeable cells, and seal against a rigid base 50 of the module, depicted in Dulle’s figure 6, as well as being configured to be electrically connected to further battery modules, to form a complete battery pack, depicted in figure 2, where multiple battery modules 22 are connected.
Regarding Claim 12, Dulle teaches the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle discloses structure wherein the battery module is configured to be inserted, either individually or when a part of a battery pack, into a void sitting over a substantially flat chassis base of a vehicle, depicted in their figure 2, where the battery module 22 is inserted over a substantially flat chassis base of the vehicle.
Additionally, this limitation represents intended use, and it is therefore only required that the module be capable of said structure. Accordingly, where the limitation requires that the module be able to be placed into a void over a substantially flat chassis base of a vehicle, said structure could be satisfied by any battery module that exists in physical space.
Regarding Claim 13, Dulle teaches the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle discloses that the battery module includes a number of rechargeable cells 54, shown in their figure 6, through disclosing that their cells are capable of recharging (Paragraph 0080, “It should also be understood that the BAS 29 may also capture energy from a regenerative braking system or the like (not shown) to recharge the battery module 22”).
Additionally, Dulle discloses that said cells are configured to generate at a pair of output terminals, an output voltage (Paragraph 0102, “the battery terminals 24 and 26 each include straight cylindrical posts configured to carry the output voltage”).
Regarding Claim 14, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 13. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the battery module includes an internal isolation switch system, configured to isolate all cells from one or both of the output terminals, Dulle discloses said structure, disclosing that their relay control circuit has the capability from disconnecting outgoing current from the voltage source which is the battery cells (Paragraph 0165, “If the digital sample indicates, at block 456 , that the current has exceeded the pull-in mode upper threshold 438 , then the relay control circuit 186 may disconnect the voltage from the battery pack voltage source 169 to the contactor 154 at block 458 . Disconnecting the voltage at block 458 may result in a reduction of the current flowing from the low-side 199 of the contactor 154 .”), where disconnection constitutes electrical isolation from output terminals.
Regarding Claim 15, Dulle teaches the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 13. Additionally, Dulle discloses that at least some of the cells are connectable in series to form a string of cells (Paragraph 0087, “these battery cells 54 may be coupled in series within the battery module 22”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation that requires that the module includes a switch that is configured to either connect two or more cells in series or to bypass those cells, Dulle discloses said structure, disclosing a switch that allows the battery module to output power, thereby connecting the two or more cells which are the two or more cells in series to the vehicle (Paragraph 0125, “The contactor 154 is a device used to switch the high current power circuit on, allowing the battery module 22 to output power,”), or to bypass the cells, preventing the cells of the battery module from outputting power.
Regarding Claim 16, Dulle teaches the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle teaches structure wherein the battery module has a layer structure in which, sitting over battery cells, are one or more separate layers with components or systems that enable the battery module to manage its internal operation, each layer occupying substantially the entire width or cross sectional area of the battery module, shown in Dulle’s figure 12, wherein the PCB 136 sits over the battery cells 54. Here, the PCB 136 comprises components which allow the module to manage its internal operation, through providing monitoring and control functions (Paragraph 0111, “the PCB 136 that provides control and monitoring functions to the battery module 22.”), as well as having structure where the outer bounds of the module are the PCB, thereby representing structure where the PCB layer occupies substantially the entire width of the battery module.
Regarding Claim 18, Dulle teaches the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle discloses that the battery module is configured to electrically engage with a conductor that is integrated into a vehicle component that has a purpose in addition to conducting power, as depicted in their figure 2, where the battery modules 22 are electrically connected by a conductor to the electric motor 16, which has a purpose of generating motive force in the vehicle (See paragraph 0076).
Regarding Claims 19-21, Dulle teaches the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of claim 19 that requires the battery module being configured to operate as a part of a battery pack that includes multiple identical battery modules, in which each battery module is provisioned with modular software components that monitor and control battery systems, this limitation represents intended use, indicating the placement of the claimed battery module among other identical battery modules in a battery pack, where the battery pack includes assignment of modular software components which monitor and control the battery systems. As this limitation is directed towards the intended use of the claimed battery module, its limitations do not carry patentable weight.
Additionally, where claims 20 and 21 further limit the software components that are a part of the intended use as specified in claim 19, their limitations are also entirely directed towards intended use of the claimed battery module, and do not carry patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 22, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the battery module is part of a data-network that establishes a network of modules, said structure is depicted in Dulle’s figure 26, which displays a control circuit relay comprising a network of modules, including a plurality of battery modules 169, as well as diagnostic, and control modules.
Regarding Claim 23, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 22. Additionally, Dulle discloses that each battery module includes an internal performance monitoring and management sub-system, through disclosing that the PCB provides control and monitoring functions to the battery module (Paragraph 0111, “the PCB 136 that provides control and monitoring functions to the battery module 22”). Additionally, it is disclosed that the control circuit is capable of automatically shutting down the battery module, thereby representing an automatic monitoring and management subsystem (Paragraph 0142, “When the readings do indicate a short-circuit at block 183 , the pre-charge control circuit may automatically shut down the pre-charge and indicate a short-circuit error at block 184”). Further, Dulle discloses an external BMS which monitors and controls the battery pack, receiving data from the battery packs (Paragraph 0233, “As will be appreciated, a similar PCB layout may be used within a separate battery management system (BMS) to perform control and monitoring operations of the battery system 20”).
Regarding Claim 24, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 22. Additionally, in regards to the instant limitation which requires that each module is configured to autonomously negotiate with other modules to determine power or performance compatibility, as shown in Dulle’s figure 28, which depicts a control circuit relay process that includes steps which include applying voltage and disconnecting voltage based on comparison to voltage thresholds. This constitutes autonomous negotiation between modules within the battery module to determine power or performance compatibility.
Regarding Claim 25, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 22. Additionally, Dulle discloses that the battery module self-initializes to operate with the network when it is turned on, through providing a signal to an AND gate to signal the control circuit to run a pre-charge process (See paragraph 0131).
Regarding Claim 26, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 22. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that each module is itself verified or authenticated, using a secure protocol, by a sub-system in the device that the battery module is installed in, and each battery module verifies or authenticates a sub-system in the device the battery module is installed in, this limitation constitutes intended use, as it is directed towards an intended verification or authentication of the modules by a sub-system in the device in which the battery module is installed. Here, this limitation does not therefore require that the battery module exhibit said behavior, but instead requires that it be capable of performing said intended use. Accordingly, where the battery module of Dulle is capable of being verified by a sub-system of any kind, as the term sub-system is not given any bounds by the claim, or defined accordingly in the specification, Dulle’s battery module is capable of being verified by a sub-system. Additionally, in regards to the limitation that requires that the battery module verify or authenticate a sub-system, the nature of verification or authentication are similarly undefined, as is the sub-system. Accordingly, where Dulle’s battery module is installed in a device, the battery module is a part of the device, and where the battery module performs internal power verification steps in its control circuit, as depicted in Dulle’s figure 28, this therefore constitutes a battery module verifying a sub-system in the device that the battery module is installed in.
Regarding Claim 27, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the battery module is a vehicle component, Dulle discloses said structure (Paragraph 0002, “More specifically, the present disclosure relates to battery modules that may be used in vehicular contexts,”). Additionally, in regards to the portion of the limitation that requires that the battery module is a configured to operate on a vehicle data network, and where the component treats the vehicle data network as an untrusted one and all communications from and to the component using the vehicle data network are encrypted, and the component does not accept commands from other components without verification or authentication, this limitation represents an intended use of the vehicle component battery module. Accordingly, it is only required that the vehicle component battery module be capable of said structure. Where the intended use is directed towards programmed functionality, it would be possible for the PCB of Dulle to be programmed accordingly, thereby satisfying the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 28, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the battery module is configured to have ingress protection of at least IP 65, where ingress protection 65 is known in the art as representing protection from dust (6), and protection from water jets (5). Here, Dulles discloses structure which satisfies this requirement, disclosing that the battery module is hermetically sealed to prevent the entrance of moisture, particulate matter, or other foreign agents from entering or exiting the battery module (Paragraph 0100, “Once positioned within the groove 116 , that is, the cover 52 may be attached to the lower housing 50 via adhesive, ultrasonic welding, or any other desirable method for hermetically sealing the battery module 22 . This may prevent moisture, particulate matter, and other foreign agents from entering the more sensitive interior components of the battery module 22”). Where hermetic sealing represents a complete airtight sealing, this therefore satisfies the requirements of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 29, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 28. Additionally, in regard to the limitation which requires that the battery module include an air pressure equalization vent configured to enable air pressure equalization inside the module to ambient or external air pressure (Paragraph 0209, “If one of the battery cells 54 encounters issues (e.g., overheating) that lead to a pressure build-up within the battery cell 54 , the battery cell 54 may release the high pressure gases from a housing of the battery cell 54 through the vent 312”) while maintaining ingress protection, as shown in figure 47, where the gas vent releases gas through a chimney 356, which releases gas away from the battery cell, while maintaining the hermetic seal between the cover 20 and the lower housing 50 (Paragraph 0219, “As described above, the apertures 352 and/or the chimney 356 may mate with additional hoses or components of the vehicle”).
Regarding Claim 31, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle disclose structure wherein the battery module is configured to perform decentralized monitoring or control, disclosing that their PCB performs monitoring and control functions (Paragraph 0111, “the PCB 136 that provides control and monitoring functions to the battery module 22.”). Here, when the battery modules are connected to form a battery pack, as depicted in Dulle’s figure 2, where a plurality of battery modules 22 are connected, each battery module has monitoring and control over its own cells, thereby performing decentralized monitoring and control in the scope of the combined battery pack. This interpretation is consistent with specification page 136 paragraph 2, which discusses and defines an array of battery modules each comprising monitoring or control systems, connected together into a battery pack with a decentralized monitoring or control architecture
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulle (US 2017/0324075 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erhart (US 2022/0077549 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the vehicle battery module is configured to generate at least 300V output at maximum charge, Dulle does not explicitly disclose said structure, citing specific examples of 48V battery modules, while discussing that other embodiments may be capable of storing and outputting power at a different voltage (Paragraph 0080, “For example, a first terminal 24 may provide a ground connection, and a second terminal 26 may provide a 48V output. However, it should be noted that other embodiments of the battery module 22 described herein may be capable of storing and outputting power at a different voltage.”).
Therefore, we look to Erhart, which is an analogous art to the instant application, directed towards the art of battery systems (Abstract) for high voltage electric vehicles (Paragraph 0039). Here, Erhart discloses that high voltage batteries suitable for electric vehicles include 48V, and 300V batteries (Paragraph 0039, “HV, refers to a voltage sufficient for propelling power driving of an electric vehicle as usually provided by battery systems for electric vehicles. Exemplarily, the high voltage may be 48 V, 100 V, 300 V, or even more.”). Accordingly, where Erhart recognizes both 48V and 300V as effective voltages for electric vehicles, and characterizes them both as being high voltage, the 300V attribute is therefore an obvious variant to a 48V attribute, in the case of batteries for electric vehicles. Therefore, where Dulle discloses a 48V battery for an electric vehicle, and further indicates that other voltages may be appropriate, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of a 300V battery as the battery module of Dulle, thereby resulting in and making obvious structure wherein the vehicle battery module is configured to generate at least 300V output at maximum charge, reading upon the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Dulle discloses that their battery module is configured to deliver voltage output directly into the voltage power bus of a vehicle (Paragraph 0072, “Such battery systems may include one or more battery modules, each battery module having a number of battery cells (e.g., lithium ion electrochemical cells) arranged to provide particular voltages and/or currents useful to power, for example, one or more components of an xEV.”). However, Dulle does not explicitly disclose said structure, citing specific examples of 48V battery modules, while discussing that other embodiments may be capable of storing and outputting power at a different voltage (Paragraph 0080, “For example, a first terminal 24 may provide a ground connection, and a second terminal 26 may provide a 48V output. However, it should be noted that other embodiments of the battery module 22 described herein may be capable of storing and outputting power at a different voltage.”).
Therefore, we look to Erhart, which is an analogous art to the instant application, directed towards the art of battery systems (Abstract) for high voltage electric vehicles (Paragraph 0039). Here, Erhart discloses that high voltage batteries suitable for electric vehicles include 48V, and 300V batteries (Paragraph 0039, “HV, refers to a voltage sufficient for propelling power driving of an electric vehicle as usually provided by battery systems for electric vehicles. Exemplarily, the high voltage may be 48 V, 100 V, 300 V, or even more.”). Where Erhart recognizes 48V as high voltage for an electric vehicle, and Dulle’s invention comprises a battery module being configured to deliver 48V output directly into the power bus of a vehicle, Dulle’s 48V is therefore high voltage, and the power bus receiving said voltage is a high voltage power bus, reading on the instant claim.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulle (US 2017/0324075 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2019/0296388 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the battery module includes multiple cylindrical form-factor rechargeable cells, Dulle discloses that their battery module comprises multiple cells, depicted in their figure 12, which are rechargeable (Paragraph 0080, “to recharge the battery module 22”). However, Dulle fails to disclose structure wherein the battery cells have a cylindrical form factor.
Therefore we look to Chen, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of battery cells for electric vehicles (Abstract). Here, Chen discloses battery cells for electric vehicles, which are connected to PCBs (Paragraph 0022). Additionally, Chen discloses that their battery cells may be cylindrical or rectangular, disclosing them as being equivalent (Paragraph 0021, “The battery cell can be a cylindrical cell 21 mm in diameter and 70 mm in height. Other shapes and sizes are possible, such as a rectangular cells or rectangular cells with rounded edges”). Where, Chen discloses that cylindrical and rectangular battery cells are equivalent for battery modules comprising PCBs for electric vehicles, and where Dulle discloses that their battery module comprising rectangular battery cells with PCBs for electric vehicles, the cylindrical battery cell form-factor disclosed by Chen constitutes an obvious variant for the rectangular battery cells of Dulle. Accordingly, this obvious variant makes obvious structure wherein the battery module includes multiple cylindrical form-factor rechargeable cells, thereby reading upon the limitation of the instant claim.
Additionally, Dulle discloses structure where the battery module includes a base 50 on which the rechargeable cells are positioned, depicted in their figure 7, the base being configured to provide a structurally rigid support for the cells, through disclosing slots 70 surrounded by ribs which are designed to receive and hold the battery cells (Paragraph 0090, “In the illustrated embodiment, the lower housing 50 includes slots 70 defined by ribs 72 (e.g., partitions) along an interior edge (e.g., interior wall) of the lower housing 50 . These slots 70 are designed to receive and hold the prismatic battery cells 54 within the battery module 22”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Dulle makes obvious the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 8. Additionally, Dulle discloses that their battery module is configured to provide thermal cooling for the cells (Paragraph 0197, “For example, the battery module 22 may include an active cooling system”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Dulle makes obvious the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 8. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim, wherein all cells in the battery module are oriented with the same polarity orientation, Chen discloses that their cylindrical batteries, which are made obvious as discussed above, comprise both a positive and negative terminal at a top end of the battery cell (Paragraph 0022, “The battery cells 100 described herein can include both the positive terminal (e.g., positive lid portion 125) and the negative terminal (e.g., negative lid portion 130) disposed at a same lateral end (e.g., the top end) of the battery cell 100.”), having all batteries oriented in the same direction, depicted in their figure 4. Where the structure of the cylindrical battery cell form factor is made obvious by Chen, it would further be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the battery cell structure of Chen for said cylindrical batteries, based on a reasonable expectation of success in the art, thereby making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dulle (US 2017/0324075 A1) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Phillips (US 2007/0236177 A1).
Regarding Claim 30, Dulle discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 28. Additionally, Dulle discloses that their battery module includes gas escape vents 312 in the lid, shown in their figure 42 (Paragraph 0209, “If one of the battery cells 54 encounters issues (e.g., overheating) that lead to a pressure build-up within the battery cell 54 , the battery cell 54 may release the high pressure gases from a housing of the battery cell 54 through the vent 312”). However, in regards to the limitation which requires that one or more labels cover the gas escape vents in normal use, and the labels are configured to release to enable pressurized gases arising from cell failure, inside the module to escape from the battery module, Dulle fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to Phillips, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of battery packs which may generate high temperature gasses internally (Abstract). Here, Phillips discloses that ventilation holes covered with a label 82, shown in their figure 38, where the label prevents moisture from entering the battery pack via the vents (See paragraph 0031), and release pressurized gasses in the event of cell failure (Paragraph 0031, “In other words, as the temperature of gases in the plurality of cells 9 increase with power operations (discharge) or during charging operations, the pressure buildup of gases in the battery pack 4 create sufficient force to exceed a given pressure setpoint, so as to overcome the adherence forces of the label 82 to housing to blow out label 82. This results in venting of the elevated temperature gases in the battery pack 4 to a lower pressure area (external of pack 4).”). Accordingly, based on this benefit of protection, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the labels of Phillips to the vents of Lim, thereby achieving improved protection, as well as having labels which cover the gas escape vents in normal use and the labels are configured to release to enable pressurized gasses arising inside the module to escape from the battery module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights