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 .
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.
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 . 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.
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.
(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, 6-9, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wynn et al. (US 2017/0256770 A1), hereinafter “Wynn.”
Regarding claim 1, Wynn discloses a battery pack comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (¶ [0042]; Figs. 4, 7, & 9, ref. no. 401) arranged along a plurality of rows parallel to a first axis (¶ [0042]; Fig. 4, ref. no. 405), the plurality of battery cells arranged in adjacent rows along a second axis crossing the first axis being misaligned with each other along the first axis, in this case cells in adjacent rows are offset from one another (see Fig. 9, ref. no. 401); and
a connection member configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells and form a plurality of parallel modules, in this case the bus bars connect the batteries in parallel and series arrangement (¶ [0053]; Fig. 9, ref. no. 907);
wherein the plurality of parallel modules includes:
a first parallel connection connecting a first battery cell at a front position to a second battery cell at a rear position along the first axis where the first and second battery cells are in adjacent rows, in this case the third and fourth battery cells are connected in parallel via mounting platforms, electrical coupling segments, and the interconnector (¶ [0059]; annotated Fig. 9, ref. nos. 915-918 & 935);
a second parallel connection connecting a third battery cell at a rear position to a fourth battery cell at the front position along the first axis where the third and fourth battery cells are in adjacent rows along the second axis, in this case the first and second battery cells are connected in parallel via mounting platforms, electrical coupling segments, and the interconnector (¶ [0059]; annotated Fig. 9, ref. nos. 915-918 & 935); and
a third parallel connection connecting a pair of battery cells of the plurality of battery cells in a same row of the plurality of row, in this case the first and fourth battery cells are connected in parallel via mounting platforms, electrical coupling segments, and the interconnector (¶ [0059]; annotated Fig. 9, ref. nos. 915-918 & 935).
PNG
media_image1.png
826
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wynn further discloses that the first and second parallel connections are misaligned with each other, in this case the connecting components establishing the parallel connections are not parallel with each other (see Fig. 9, ref. no. 935).
Regarding claim 6, Wynn further discloses that the pair of battery cells includes a front specific cell, in this case the first cell (see annotated Fig. 9), and a rear specific cell, in this case the fourth cell (see annotated Fig. 9), connected by the third parallel connection and belonging to a particular row selected from among the plurality of rows, in this case the first and fourth cells are in the same row (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Wynn further discloses that the front specific cell is further connected to the second parallel connection and the first parallel connection, in this case the connecting components connect the first through fourth cells in parallel (¶ [0053]; see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Wynn further discloses that the rear specific cell is further connected to the second parallel connection and the first parallel connection, in this case the connecting components connect the first through fourth cells in parallel (¶ [0053]; see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Wynn further discloses that a battery cell of the plurality of battery cells not belonging to the particular row is connected by the first and second parallel connections, this case the second and third cells are connected in parallel by the connecting components c (¶ [0053]; see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Wynn further discloses that the plurality of parallel modules includes at least two third parallel connections in different rows among the plurality of rows, in this case connections of four cells are repeated within the rows of the module (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Wynn further discloses that the third parallel connection includes a plurality of third parallel connections, and wherein, in a first parallel module and a second parallel module adjacent to the first parallel module among the plurality of parallel modules, the plurality of third parallel connections do not overlap each other, in this case connections of four cells are repeated within the rows of the module and do not overlap with each other (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16, Wynn further discloses that a plurality of battery units repeatedly arranged along the first axis, wherein the plurality of parallel modules neighboring each other include the third parallel connection in rows different from each other, in this case connections of four cells are repeated within the rows of the module such that the third connections are in different rows (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, Wynn further discloses that each battery unit of the plurality of battery units includes a plurality of parallel battery modules, in this case a plurality of modules may be connected in parallel (¶ [0046]; Fig. 6, ref. no. 400).
Regarding claim 18, Wynn further discloses that the third parallel connection among the parallel battery modules are in different rows from each other, in this case the electrical connection between the left and center modules would be in a different row that the electrical connection between the center and right modules (see Fig. 6, ref. no. 400).
Regarding claim 20, Wynn further discloses that the number of batteries in a parallel module is greater than the number of rows in the parallel module, in this case seven rows each include sixteen batteries (¶ [0042]; Fig. 4).
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 3-5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn.
Regarding claim 3, Wynn does not specify the orientation of the parallel connections. However, rearranging parts of a device will not render it patentable when the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, Wynn discloses all of the parallel connections between the various battery cells. One with ordinary skill in the art would understand to arrange the connections so that they corresponded with the positions of the connected battery cells and provided the desired electrical connection. In other words, the selection of the orientation of the parallel connections is one of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have inclined the first parallel connection in a clockwise direction and the second parallel connection in a counterclockwise direction.
Regarding claim 4, Wynn does not specify the orientation of the parallel connections. However, rearranging parts of a device will not render it patentable when the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, Wynn discloses all of the parallel connections between the various battery cells. One with ordinary skill in the art would understand to arrange the connections so that they corresponded with the positions of the connected battery cells and provided the desired electrical connection. In other words, the selection of the orientation of the parallel connections is one of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged the first and second parallel connections to form an acute angle with the second axis.
Regarding claim 5, Wynn does not specify the orientation of the parallel connections. However, rearranging parts of a device will not render it patentable when the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, Wynn discloses all of the parallel connections between the various battery cells. One with ordinary skill in the art would understand to arrange the connections so that they corresponded with the positions of the connected battery cells and provided the desired electrical connection. In other words, the selection of the orientation of the parallel connections is one of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged the third parallel connection to be parallel to the first axis.
Regarding claim 21, Wynn further discloses n-number of battery cells connected in parallel, in this case sixteen (¶ [0042]; Fig. 4), and m-number of rows, in this case seven (¶ [0042]; Fig. 4), but does not define the number of particular rows forming the third connection is n-m. However, Wynn does teach that the number of battery cells and rows may be altered (¶ [0042]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to select the number of rows, and thus the number of necessary parallel connections needed between the rows, in order to provide the desired power output from the battery pack. Furthermore, merely duplicating parts absent a new and unexpected result does not have patentable significance. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI.B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the number of rows forming the third parallel connections to be n-m in order to have provided the desired power output.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Tushar et al. (US 2023/0253646 A1), hereinafter “Tushar.”
Regarding claim 10, Wynn further discloses that batteries within the rows form groups connected in parallel that are in turn connected in series (¶ [0053) and that other series/parallel arrangements may be used (¶ [0046]), but does not explicitly disclose the first position correction cell that forms the parallel connection with a preceding row and a subsequent row. However, Tushar teaches that adjacent rows of cells may be connected in parallel or series (¶ [0037]; Figs. 4A & 4B, ref. nos. 306 and 307). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to arrange the electrical connections between the rows in series or parallel, and thus placing a first position correction cell in series or parallel connection with preceding and subsequent rows, in order to achieve the desired power output in terms of amperage and voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged the rows of the battery module such that they were connected in parallel, thus resulting in a first position correction cell in parallel with preceding and subsequent rows, in order to yield the desired power output.
Regarding claim 11, Wynn and Tushar do not define the position of the first correction cell relative to the third parallel connections. However, rearranging parts of a device will not render it patentable when the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, Wynn discloses all of the parallel connections between the various battery cells. One with ordinary skill in the art would understand to arrange the connections so that they corresponded with the positions of the connected battery cells and provided the desired electrical connection. In other words, the selection of the orientation of the parallel connections is one of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged the first position correction cell between third parallel connections.
Regarding claim 12, Wynn further discloses that batteries within the rows form groups connected in parallel that are in turn connected in series (¶ [0053) and that other series/parallel arrangements may be used (¶ [0046]), but does not explicitly disclose the second position correction cell that forms the parallel connection with a preceding row and a subsequent row. However, Tushar teaches that a plurality of adjacent rows of cells may be connected in parallel or series (¶ [0037]; Figs. 4A & 4B, ref. nos. 306 and 307). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to arrange the electrical connections between the rows in series or parallel, and thus placing a second position correction cell in series or parallel connection with preceding and subsequent rows, in order to achieve the desired power output in terms of amperage and voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged the rows of the battery module such that they were connected in parallel, thus resulting in a second position correction cell in parallel with preceding and subsequent rows, in order to yield the desired power output.
Regarding claim 13, Wynn and Tushar do not define the position of the second correction cell relative to the third parallel connections. However, rearranging parts of a device will not render it patentable when the rearrangement does not alter the device’s operation. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, Wynn discloses all of the parallel connections between the various battery cells. One with ordinary skill in the art would understand to arrange the connections so that they corresponded with the positions of the connected battery cells and provided the desired electrical connection. In other words, the selection of the orientation of the parallel connections is one of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged the first position correction cell between third parallel connections.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Harris (US 10,243,183 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Wynn does not disclose the void position. However, Harris teaches a battery module with an empty position that does not include a battery cell that may provide space for the bus bar (col. 9, line 58 to col. 10, line 2; Fig. 7). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a void position would allow battery module components such as the bus bar to be accommodated within the module, thereby facilitating module operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a void position in order to have facilitated module operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729