DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2026/01/14 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 2025/12/09, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-16 are pending and are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025/12/09 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has, among other things, rather bafflingly amended the claims to require that the electromagnetic compensation is merely “connected to” the electrical terminals of the battery cell assembly, rather than “electrically connected to.” Applicant points to Figs. 1-4 for support for this amendment, showing dotted lines “connecting” electromagnetic compensation conductor 42 to the terminals 12/14.
In short, there are two problems: 1) what “connection” even means and 2) the instant specification as written. Applicant has amended the claims in response to the Final Rejection’s puzzlement at the term “electrical connection”—which would seemingly defeat the purpose and function of the battery pack—replacing it with “connection” as if it were meaningfully different. Applicant provides no rationale for why the “connection” it asserts distinguishes the instant claims over the prior art is functionally different in any way. What kind of connection does Applicant envision or intend here? Of what import is it?
Secondly, the specification does not actually teach “connection.” Applicant appears to rely on dotted lines in figures, which cannot be unambiguously cited to represent “connection” of any kind. Paragraph 0065 says “the electromagnetic compensation conductor 42 is not connected to any of the poles 28”—correctly implying, in the Office’s view, that the electromagnetic compensation conductor is not connected in any way to the electrical cell circuit, either through the poles or the terminals. Paragraph 0065 also says that “electromagnetic compensation conductor 42 is represented by a dashed line for illustrative purposes only.” The specification appears to cut against what Applicant argues is depicted in Figs. 1-4. It shows a path, maybe even an overlapping path, but not connection per se.
It remains puzzling why Applicant argues that instantly claimed EM compensator is different from the prior art. On p. 7 of the Remarks, for example, Applicant argues that Yoshikawa teaches “closed magnetic loops that generate a rotating countercurrent via magnetic interaction.” But how is this different from the instantly claimed compensator? That is what a compensator does. It is not at all clear how Applicant views the instant invention operating distinctly from the prior art or why it thinks “connection” of the compensator to the electrical terminals of the cell pack is either taught in the as-filed specification or desirable. If Applicant insists upon pursuing this line of amendment, the Office encourages Applicant to lay out a very clear ‘theory of the case,’ so to speak, explaining why “connection” is not just a point of distinction from the prior art, but essential to the function of the instant invention.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to require that “an electromagnetic compensation conductor” is “[merely] connected at one end to a first connection terminal and at another end a [sic] second connection terminal.” The Remarks filed 2025/12/09 assert that this amendment is “fully supported in the Specification, Drawings, and Claims of the Application, as filed, and no new matter is added,” (Remarks p. 6), and point to Figs. 1-4 showing 42 “connected” to both terminals 12/14.
A search of the specification does not show support for an electromagnetic compensation conductor actually being connected to what are essentially output terminals of a cell stack. Paragraph 0018 of PGPUB US 2023/0182583 says:
It is noted that the current direction of the electromagnetic compensation conductor can be chosen by the manner how [sic] the electromagnetic compensation conductor is connected to the positive pole and the negative pole of the battery cell assembly or of a battery unit including the battery cell assembly. The opposed directions also lead to a reliable cancellation effect.
The Office notes, however, that it is not clear what “connected” means in this context. It does not say “electrically.” It even implies “opposite directions” of current flow in the cell stack circuit and the compensation conductor—as is implied by the normal function of a “compensation conductor.” In what sense are they “electrically connected” if they are flowing in opposite directions? The terrible English grammar and sense of the paragraph cannot be reliably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as indicating a real “connection.” An ordinary connection between two electrical conductors would lead to short-circuit and defeat the purpose of the system.
Applicant appears to rely on dotted lines in figures, which cannot be unambiguously cited to represent “connection” of any kind. Paragraph 0065 says “the electromagnetic compensation conductor 42 is not connected to any of the poles 28”—correctly implying, in the Office’s view, that the electromagnetic compensation conductor is not connected in any way to the electrical cell circuit, either through the poles or the terminals. Paragraph 0065 also says that “electromagnetic compensation conductor 42 is represented by a dashed line for illustrative purposes only.” The specification appears to cut against what Applicant argues is depicted in Figs. 1-4. It shows a path, maybe even an overlapping path, but not connection per se.
Neither the specification as filed nor the Remarks filed 9/23/2025 explain how or why one would connect an electrically conductive member, such as an “electromagnetic compensation conductor,” to the output terminals of a cell stack, when that would appear to just short-circuit the stack and destroy its functionality. A broader reading of paragraph 0018 suggests that the “connection” between the compensation conductor and the output terminals is an abstract one referring to magnetic compensation geometry rather than a direct electrical bridge. But if this is the case, it is not clear how this differs from the prior art, and Applicant has not offered any argument clarifying any of this. In fact, Applicant argues that previously cited Yoshikawa (US 2021/0234142) only teaches shielding members “that are not similarly electrically connected to any terminals, as they are magnetic and generate a countercurrent via this magnetic interaction.” Is Applicant arguing that the instant compensation conductor does not operate via magnetic interaction but rather through direct electrical conduction? This does not seem to be what instant paragraphs 0010-0011 suggest, nor is it clear on an engineering-level what is intended by this line of argument concerning the positive structural differences between the newly claimed invention and what is taught or implied by the cited prior art of record. The claims are therefore rejected for lack of written description.
Claims 1-16 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.
As discussed above, claim 1 lacks written description. As now claimed, the invention appears to be directed towards a cell stack that is self-shorted by an electrically conductive member that the claims call “an electromagnetic compensation conductor.” Insofar as it is not that, it is unclear what “connected to” means. The normal meaning is direct, electrically conductive connection. If it refers to some spatial orientation with reference to an induced magnetic field, it is unclear how the claim language defines over the prior art of record. Neither the claims nor the specification disclose an insulating connection nor what such a structure is comprised of. They also do not clearly disclose a simple connection, between two electrically conducting members, which would apparently be fatal to the operation of the device. It is unclear what precisely is intended or required by the claims. Claims 1-16 are therefore rejected for being indefinite. Given that Applicant clearly argues that the prior art does not teach electrical connection, in contradistinction to “magnetic” interactions, the claims have been interpreted broadly in line with the normal meaning of direct electrical connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (US 2016/0293925 to Nakayama et al.) in view of Kobayashi (US Patent No. 10,608,229 to Kobayashi et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Nakayama teaches:
a battery cell assembly for a battery unit of an electric vehicle comprising a plurality of prismatic cells with a top end surface on which two poles of the battery are located, the cells being lined up in four rows in parallel line-up directions with all the top surfaces on the same side, with cell width directions extending between the vertically oriented poles and connected in series (Figs. 2 and 13, ¶ 0085, etc.)
an inter-row connector 53 electrically connecting one of the poles in the first row to one of the poles in the second row and which is inclined with respect to the line-up directions (Fig. 13, ¶ 0089)
PNG
media_image1.png
516
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakayama does teach:
an embodiment with a second electric inter-row connector connected to a pole of an adjacent cell in a pair of cells within a row, wherein the first and second electric inter-row connectors cross each other
Kobayashi, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery cell assembly, teaches rows of cell-groups (rather than cells) connected in series, wherein adjacent cell groups forming a pair within a row have crossing adjacent inter-row connectors (Fig. 12, column 8), which is designed to reduce the magnetic field generated by straight-forwardly connected cells (see e.g. column 1 lines 19-29 and column 2 lines 6-21).
PNG
media_image2.png
902
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the cell-group in Kobayashi can be represented by a composite cell, with the number (ranging from 1 to an arbitrary plurality of cells) varying according to the particular needs of a connected load. It would have been obvious, therefore, to hook up a plurality of single cells in rows (such as those in Nakayama) with crossing intra-row connectors according to the connection scheme taught in Kobayashi, with the motivation to reduce the magnetic field effects. 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].
Conclusion
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