DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-19 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 requires a “rubber pad attached to a surface of the base away from the interior surface of the pack tray.” The plain reading of this limitation requires a rubber pad attached a surface not facing the interior of the pack tray. But the specification as filed as well as the instant drawings show rubber pad 39 on an upper surface of the tray, or “toward” the interior of the pack stray (see instant Figs. 7-8). The claim language as written is not found in the specification itself, only in the instantly filed claims. It is therefore unclear whether the claim as written is directed toward the embodiments described in the drawings or to some alternative, not discussed explicitly. It is further unclear how to interpret “a surface of the base away from the interior surface of the pack tray.” What does away mean in this context? non-intersecting normal lines? on an outside surface of the base? on a different surface? The claim has been interpreted broadly in line with the specification and drawings as requiring a rubber pad on a bottom surface of a housing supporting the battery cells.
Claim 8 requires “a first portion [of a bus] configured to contact a positive electrode lead of a copper material provided in each of the plurality of battery cells” and a corresponding limitation referring to a “second portion” for “a negative electrode lead of a copper material provided in each of the plurality of battery cells.” It is unclear whether the phrase “of a copper material” applies to the first and second portions of the busbars or to the respective leads “provided in each of the plurality of battery cells.” It is further unclear whether the “a copper material” defines some other structural feature of a battery cell or simply describes the composition of the leads/busbars. The claim has been interpreted broadly to refer to the bus, the leads, or both.
Regarding Claim 15, it is unclear whether the limitation “the plurality of wedges is coupled with a rod of urethane material configured to contact the leads to the plurality of sensing busbars” is a simple statement of composition (i.e. the wedges are made of urethane) or an addition of a new element (i.e. a rod) that is distinct from the “wedge” element. Insofar as it requires a distinct “rod” in addition to a the “wedges” it is unclear what additional structural relationship is imparted by the limitation “configured to contact the leads to the plurality of sensing busbars.” Does the coupling, in itself, necessitate the wedges’ position vis-à-vis the busbars and the leads? or does the coupling alter the wedges’ functional relationships to the busbars and the leads? Is the rod defined by its columnar shape or can it be a variety of shapes (noting that the instant drawings do not appear to show a columnar rod, and do not obviously evoke a “rod” at all, under the plain meaning)? The claim has been interpreted broadly to require a urethane component coupled to the wedge.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The claims refer to a feature called “a sensing circuit” which is both an electrical circuit, and has positive structural features that are not essential to the circuit per se, but seem to be housing features, such as coupling parts for “coupling” (claim 1), and “a base” and “a plurality of support” (claim 3). This phrase has been interpreted broadly, therefore, to potentially refer both to the essential elements of an electrical circuit, and any supporting elements that house or support said circuit elements or other components of the battery pack that are part of the electrical circuit in question. That is, the phrase has not been read narrowly to exclude non-electrically conducting features, or to exclude features that might be said to support various electrical components but which are not essential to the electrical circuit per se.
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 1-4, 9-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahn (US 2016/0248070 to Ahn).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahn teaches:
a battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells 120 aligned in an alignment direction (Fig. 2, ¶ 0028)
a pack tray 140 with a sensing circuit 160 coupled to the tray, the circuit comprising a plurality of sensing busbars 136 electrically connected to cell leads 122 (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 0028, 0039)
PNG
media_image1.png
710
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sensing block 130 coupled to the sensing circuit via ports (Figs. 3-5, ¶ 0039-0040)
the sensing block having a plurality of wedges, seen as features surrounding the seating surface 132, and configured to ensure stable between contact leads 122 and busbars 136 (Figs. 3-5, ¶ 0058-0062)
PNG
media_image2.png
544
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
542
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
462
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Ahn teaches:
at least one cross member, seen as the vertical wall of 140 in Fig. 3, including port 148, installed on an interior surface of the pack tray and along the alignment direction, and coupled to the sensing circuit 146 as well as at least one cell barrier installed on the interior surface along an perpendicular direction, seen as a cell retaining wall on either end of 140 extending outwards along the pouch surface(s)
Regarding Claim 3, Ahn teaches:
wherein the sensing circuit comprises a base wall 140 extending upwards from an interior surface of the pack tray and configured to support the battery cells and a plurality of supports 146/148 connected to the base and disposed apart from each other along the alignment direction, and configured to support the plurality of sensing busbars 136 (Figs. 3-5)
Regarding Claim 4, Ahn teaches:
surface features that read on a “joint” connected to the plurality of supports 146/148 and integrating them with the vertical backing wall of 140 on an interior surface of the pack tray
Regarding Claim 9, Ahn teaches:
a block body coupled to the plurality of supports and comprising a plurality of ribs 132/133 formed apart from each other along the alignment direction (Figs. 2-5)
Regarding Claim 10, Ahn teaches:
each of the wedges, such as the protruding rails and/or surfaces seen on 140 in Fig. 3, is coupled to a respective rib surface, with a space formed between the rib surface and an adjacent rib surface, and a plurality of the supports 148 is configured to be inserted into the space to electrically connect with the bus bars 136 (Figs. 3-5)
PNG
media_image2.png
544
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
542
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
462
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Ahn teaches:
wherein the spacing between opposing surfaces of adjacent ribs opens up towards the bottom of the ribs where they interface with the sensing circuit 140/146 (Figs. 4-5)
Regarding Claim 12, Ahn teaches:
wherein each of the wedges comprises multiple surfaces, all coupled to each other, including the respective surfaces, being an integrated piece (Figs. 3-5)
Regarding Claim 16, Ahn teaches:
an assembly method for a battery pack having a pack tray 140 coupled with a sensing circuit 160, and disposing a plurality of battery cells 120 aligned in an alignment direction on a base of the sensing circuit housing (Fig. 2, ¶ 0028)
the circuit comprising a plurality of sensing busbars 136 electrically connected to cell leads 122 (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 0028, 0039)
PNG
media_image1.png
710
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
coupling a sensing block 130 coupled to the sensing circuit via ports (Figs. 3-5, ¶ 0039-0040)
the sensing block having a plurality of wedges, seen as features surrounding the seating surface 132, and configured to ensure stable between contact leads 122 and busbars 136, such that the leads are contacted to the sensing busbars through a plurality of gaps formed by the wedges (Figs. 3-5, ¶ 0058-0062)
Regarding Claim 17, Ahn teaches:
wherein the leads are contacted to the sensing busbars in the alignment direction (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 18, Ahn teaches:
coupling the sensing busbars to a plurality of supports 148 of the sensing circuit and coupling the plurality of wedges 146/147 on the sensing circuit 140 to a plurality of ribs extending from a block body 130 of the sensing block (Figs. 3-5)
Regarding Claim 19, Ahn teaches:
inserting the plurality of supports 148 between wedges such that the block body 130 contacts the plurality of supports (Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image6.png
432
610
media_image6.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, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2015/0171399 to Jeong) in view of Ahn (US 2016/0248070 to Ahn).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong teaches:
a battery comprising a plurality of battery cells 500 aligned in an alignment direction having leads contacting busbars 420/440
wedges 100/300 from a wedge block that are coupled to the middle portion 200 having the busbars, comprising a plurality of wedges configured to contact the leads of the cells and the plurality of busbars (Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0022-0027)
PNG
media_image7.png
450
384
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
482
610
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Jeong does not explicitly teach:
a pack tray
wherein the busbars are “sensing” busbars
While Jeong teaches that the method shown above does not require sensing circuits, sensing circuits for monitoring battery states at batter terminals, such as voltage, were common in the art. Ahn, for example, teaches a similar stacked cell pack, with a tray, wherein the busbars are “sensing” busbars connected to sensors that feed back into a battery management system. It would have been obvious to provide sensing connections at the busbars in Jeong, with the motivation to better monitor battery states, as taught in e.g. Ahn. That would turn the support 200 into a “sensing circuit” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims (as discussed above under claim interpretation), because it supports sensing busbars, and would turn the wedge blocks 100/300 into a “sensing block” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, because they press electrical contactors into the leads of cells and other busbars. It further would have been obvious to provide a tray bottom to support the cells, as taught in Ahn, and otherwise known in the art, in order to provide a stable supporting structure for the cells. Jeong, modified with conventional sensing leads at the busbars provided at the ends of the battery stack, and a pack tray to support the cells, is therefore interpreted to read on claim 1, within its broadest reasonable interpretation, absent further definition of what “sensing circuit” and “sensing block” necessarily include and exclude.
Regarding Claim 3, Jeong teaches:
wherein the modified “sensing circuit” 200 (in view of Ahn) comprises a base
Although Jeong does not explicitly the surrounding housing structure one of ordinary skill in the art would expect for the battery pack taught there, it would have been obvious to connect such a base to a tray, as taught in Ahn, with the motivation to support the battery in a tray in, e.g., a vehicle (see ¶ 0022 of Jeong, discussing its use in a vehicle).
wherein, by providing a plurality of components 200 connected to a tray base, in order to provide several battery modules for a high voltage pack to be used in a vehicle, one arrives at a configuration wherein the plurality of components 200 can be said to form a plurality of “supports” connected to a tray base, and disposed apart from each other, each one configured to support the plurality of busbars that can be sensing bars (see Fig. 4 of Jeong, showing a plurality of supports stacked)
Regarding Claim 5, Jeong teaches:
wherein each of the busbars, which can be modified into sensing busbars, in view of Ahn, are connected together, and are provided on either side of the support 200, and connected across it, and therefore “surrounds” their respective supports within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation (see annotated Fig. 4, above)
Claims 6, 8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2016/0248070 to Ahn).
Regarding Claim 6, Ahn teaches:
a rectangular cross-sectional shape for the support 148/248 (Fig. 5, Fig. 12), wherein the port between the busbars 136 and the sensing circuit can take a variety of shapes
While Ahn does not explicitly teach a threaded fastening hole, threaded fastening holes were conventional in the art for making fixed electrical connections between two elements. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, Ahn teaches that the actual connection method can vary according to conventional methods in the art, such that it would have been obvious to use a threaded hole, absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 8, Ahn teaches:
copper and aluminum for conducting parts (¶ 0034)
While Ahn does not explicitly teach what the leads/bus are made of, such as copper, copper was a conventional lead/bus material in the art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Ahn teaches:
wherein the ribs and bus bars comprise hooking/catching parts (¶ 0061-0063 — instant claim 13)
wherein the interface between the sensing circuit and the sensing block is mediated by grooves and rails (¶ 0075 — instant claim 14)
Although Ahn teaches the bus bar having openings for receiving the hooks, and guide rails on vertical wall 140 sliding into grooved parts of the assembly piece 130 in not exactly the claimed way, inverting the hook protrusions/receiving parts on complementary pieces, and providing guide rails/grooves at different points along interfacing elements are, only involve the application of well-understood interlocking principles in the art subject to ordinary experimentation and arbitrary placement towards the same ends. 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). 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]. It would have been obvious to place a hook or a hook catchment on either piece of the bus bar or the assembly or to place a guide rail and/or groove along the wedge and/or rib, or vice versa, since they both achieve the same function, absent a showing of unexpected results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2016/0248070 to Ahn) in view of Park (US 2023/0110762 to Park et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Ahn does not explicitly teach:
a rubber pad attached to a bottom tray surface to cushion the cells
Park, however, teaches a thermally conductive resin layer 300 under stacked cells (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
794
652
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Thermally conductive silicone rubbers were conventionally known in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a thermally conductive silicone resin pad, like that suggested by Park, underneath the cells in Ahn, to cushion the cells and improve thermal conductivity across the pack to even out temperature fluctuations.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2016/0248070 to Ahn) in view of King (US 2018/0375179 to King et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Ahn does not explicitly teach:
a rod of urethane coupled to the wedges which are configured to contact the leads to the sensing busbars
The wedges on the sensing block in Ahn are coupled to a variety of surface features designed to enhance bus/lead connection, though Ahn does not mention urethane as a principle chemical component. Urethane, however, was a common bus assembly polymer, as taught in King (¶ 0060), which is directed towards a frame for aligned battery cells and teaches urethane as a softer material which can be provided around support beams and the like. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results 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 use urethane on the wedge components of Ahn, absent a showing of unexpected results, since urethane was a common overmolding material for support structures in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No. 9, 755,212
US Patent No. 11,158,912
US Patent No. 11,843,213
US Patent No. 12,294,115
US 2014/0212724
US 2015/0037641
US 2015/0207127
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