DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 1, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 7 and 17 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are pending review in this action.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation “among the plurality of first through holes and second through holes, the first through hole and the second through hole corresponding to each other form the configuration hole” on lines 19-21.
Previously, the claim defines “a plurality of first through holes” (line 16), “a plurality of second through holes” (lines 17-18) and “configuration holes” (line 5).
To avoid potential ambiguity, the limitation of lines 19-21 should be edited to read: “among the plurality of first through holes and second through holes, a first through hole and a second through hole corresponding to each other form a configuration hole”.
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 9 reads: “The battery cell connecting structure according to claim 1, the electrical connector is made of an aluminum bar.”
The claim should be edited to read:
“The battery cell connecting structure according to claim 1, wherein the electrical connector is made of an aluminum bar.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “among the plurality of first through holes and second through holes, the first through hole and the second through hole corresponding to each other form the configuration hole” on lines 19-21.
Previously, the claim defines “a plurality of first through holes” (line 16), “a plurality of second through holes” (lines 17-18) and “configuration holes” (line 5).
To avoid potential ambiguity, the limitation of lines 19-21 should be edited to read: “among the plurality of first through holes and second through holes, a first through hole and a second through hole corresponding to each other form a configuration hole”.
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 19 reads: “The battery cell connecting structure according to claim 10, the electrical connector is made of an aluminum bar.”
The claim should be edited to read:
“The battery cell connecting structure according to claim 10, wherein the electrical connector is made of an aluminum bar.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation “among the plurality of first through holes and second through holes, the first through hole and the second through hole corresponding to each other form the configuration hole” on lines 19-21.
Previously, the claim defines “a plurality of first through holes” (line 17), “a plurality of second through holes” (lines 18-19) and “configuration holes” (line 6).
To avoid potential ambiguity, the limitation of lines 20-23 should be edited to read: “among the plurality of first through holes and second through holes, a first through hole and a second through hole corresponding to each other form a configuration hole”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electrical connector” on lines 11 and 14. Previously, the claim defines “a plurality of electrical connectors” (line 7).
It is thus unclear whether the limitations of lines 11 and 14 are intended to refer to a specific electrical connector or to the plurality of electrical connectors.
As such, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 10-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the electrical connector” on lines 11 and 14. Previously, the claim defines “a plurality of electrical connectors” (line 7).
It is thus unclear whether the limitations of lines 11 and 14 are intended to refer to a specific electrical connector or to the plurality of electrical connectors.
As such, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the electrical connector” on lines 12 and 15. Previously, the claim defines “a plurality of electrical connectors” (line 8).
It is thus unclear whether the limitations of lines 12 and 15 are intended to refer to a specific electrical connector or to the plurality of electrical connectors.
As such, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 12-13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0013480, hereinafter Masson in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0069278, hereinafter Mastrandrea and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0151923, hereinafter Tutzer.
Regarding claim 1, Masson teaches a busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”). The busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) electrically connects a plurality of battery cells (A1-A17) (paragraph [0145] and figures 7A-7C, 8, 9).
The busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) comprises two metal sheets (11 and 12) (paragraph [0146] and figures 7A-7C).
Metal sheet (12) is arranged at one end of battery terminals (5) (paragraph [0157] and figures 7A and 7B). Metal sheet (12) comprises a container (V2, “cavity”) and configuration openings (16) in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) (paragraph [0146] and figures 7A, 7C, 9). The container (V2, “cavity”) is filled with a cooling medium (paragraph [0146]). The metal sheet (12) is thus considered a “cooler”.
Metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) electrically connects the battery terminals (5). A partial region of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) abuts the container (V2, “cavity”) (figure 7C). Another partial region of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) is exposed at the configuration openings (16) and is electrically connected to the battery terminals (5) at weld regions (S1) (paragraph [0148] and figure 7C). The metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) is welded in a sealed mode to a circumference of the configuration openings (16) at weld regions (S2) (paragraph [0146] and figure 7C).
An electrically insulating heat transfer liquid is arranged in the container (V2, “cavity”) and configured to cool the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) (paragraphs [0102, 0157]).
The metal sheet (12) is an upper plate. The metal sheet (12) includes a plurality of first through holes in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) (figures 7A and 7B).
Masson teaches that it is known in the art that bus bars may be laminated with one or more electrically insulating materials (paragraph [0003]).
Masson fails to teach: 1) that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) penetrates the container (V2, “cavity”) and that the “cooler” includes a lower plate; 2) that there are a plurality of electrical connectors penetrating the container (V2, “cavity”); and 3) that the “cooler” is made of an electrically insulating material.
Regarding 1), Mastrandrea teaches a similar busbar (300) comprising an intermediate electrically conductive layer (410) sandwiched by two outer layers (408A and 408B). A cooling duct (304) is defined by outer layer (408A) and outer layer (408B) and intermediate layer (410, “electrical connector”) penetrates the cooling duct (304) such that the intermediate layer (410, “electrical connector”) is actively cooled on both sides by cooling fluid traveling through the cooling duct (304) (paragraphs [0037-0039] and figure 4).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second metal sheet (12) as a lower plate of the “cooler” and to have it positioned below the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector) such that the container (V2, “cavity”) is formed on both sides of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) and the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) penetrates the container (V2, “cavity”) in the manner taught by Mastrandrea for the purpose of actively cooling the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) from both sides and thus increasing the area available for heat transfer and increasing the cooling efficiency.
In the combination of Masson and Mastrandrea, the “cooler” comprises an upper metal sheet (12, “upper plate”) and a lower metal sheet (“lower plate”) connected to each other. Including the lower metal sheet would necessarily require the formation of through holes in the lower metal sheet in a mirror arrangement to the upper metal sheet (12) – such that there would be through holes in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) for the purpose of permitting the battery terminals (5) to pass through.
A through hole in the upper metal sheet (12) and a matching through hole in the lower metal sheet would form a configuration opening (16).
Regarding 2), Mastrandrea teaches that the busbar (300) includes two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) (paragraph [0037]). The Tutzer reference is commonly owned with Mastrandrea and directed to an analogous assembly. Tutzer explains that the two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) sandwich a layer (410-B), which electrically insulates the two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) from each other. The presence of the two mutually insulated electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) allows for selective electrical interconnections between the battery cells (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Masson’s metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) with Mastranrea and Tutzer’s busbar having two electrical connectors for the purpose of allowing versatility in the electrical connection of the battery cells.
Given the geometry of the two electrical connectors in the combination of Masson, Mastrandrea and Tutzer, there would be two electrical connectors penetrating the container (V2, “cavity”).
Regarding 3), it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to laminate an insulating material on the “cooler” of Masson as modified by Mastrandrea for the purpose of preventing unwanted electrical contact with the exposed metal of the sheets forming the “cooler”.
Regarding claim 2, Masson teaches that the “cooler” comprises a liquid inlet (14) and a liquid outlet (15) communicating with the container (V2, “cavity”). The liquid inlet (14) is configured to input the electrically insulating heat transfer liquid into the container (V2, “cavity”). The liquid outlet (15) is configured to discharge the electrically insulating heat transfer liquid from the container (V2, “cavity”) (paragraph [0156] and figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Masson teaches that the liquid inlet (14) is arranged on one side of the “cooler” and the liquid outlet (15) is arranged on another side of “cooler”, opposite to the liquid inlet (14) (figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 5, Masson teaches that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) includes a cooling part penetrating into the container (V2, “cavity”).
Masson teaches that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) includes a connection part exposed to the configuration openings (16) (figure 7C). An observation hole (18) is formed in the connection part (paragraph [0154] and figure 7C).
Regarding claim 6, Masson teaches a battery module (M2) that is part of a battery pack (P) (paragraph [0144]). The battery module (M2) includes a plurality of battery cells connected in parallel (paragraph [0145]). Masson teaches that battery packs (P) include multiple electrically connected battery modules. Masson gives an example of two modules (M1 and M2) connected together in series and each module having a plurality of battery cells connected together in parallel. The series connection is formed by bridging busbar (B3) (paragraphs [0027, 0028] and figure 5). The bridging busbar (B3) is a first output connector connected to a positive or negative terminal in the battery module (M2). Given the structure of the busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) of Masson as modified by Mastrandrea, the bridging busbar (B3) would extend into the “cooler”.
Masson fails to teach a second output connector.
It would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third battery module connected in series with the two battery modules (M1 and M2) for the purpose of increasing the voltage of the battery pack. Another module would require a second bridging busbar (“second output connector”), which would be connected to a terminal in the third battery module that would be opposite in polarity to the terminal in the second battery module. Given the structure of the busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) of Masson as modified by Mastrandrea, the second bridging busbar (B3, “second output connector”) would extend into the “cooler”.
Regarding claim 10, Masson teaches a battery pack (P) (paragraph [0144]). The battery pack (P) comprises a plurality of battery cells (A1-A17) and a busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) (paragraph [0145] and figures 7A-7C, 8, 9).
The busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) comprises two metal sheets (11 and 12) (paragraph [0146] and figures 7A-7C).
Metal sheet (12) is arranged at one end of battery terminals (5) (paragraph [0157] and figures 7A and 7B). Metal sheet (12) comprises a container (V2, “cavity”) and configuration openings (16) in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) (paragraph [0146] and figures 7A, 7C, 9). The container (V2, “cavity”) is filled with a cooling medium (paragraph [0146]). The metal sheet (12) is thus considered a “cooler”.
Metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) electrically connects the battery terminals (5). A partial region of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) abuts the container (V2, “cavity”) (figure 7C). Another partial region of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) is exposed at the configuration openings (16) and is electrically connected to the battery terminals (5) at weld regions (S1) (paragraph [0148] and figure 7C). The metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) is welded in a sealed mode to a circumference of the configuration openings (16) at weld regions (S2) (paragraph [0146] and figure 7C).
An electrically insulating heat transfer liquid is arranged in the container (V2, “cavity”) and configured to cool the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) (paragraphs [0102, 0157]).
The metal sheet (12) is an upper plate. The metal sheet (12) includes a plurality of first through holes in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) (figures 7A and 7B).
Masson teaches that it is known in the art that bus bars may be laminated with one or more electrically insulating materials (paragraph [0003]).
Masson fails to teach: 1) that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) penetrates the container (V2, “cavity”) and that the “cooler” includes a lower plate; 2) that there are a plurality of electrical connectors penetrating the container (V2, “cavity”); and 3) that the “cooler” is made of an electrically insulating material.
Regarding 1), Mastrandrea teaches a similar busbar (300) comprising an intermediate electrically conductive layer (410) sandwiched by two outer layers (408A and 408B). A cooling duct (304) is defined by outer layer (408A) and outer layer (408B) and intermediate layer (410, “electrical connector”) penetrates the cooling duct (304) such that the intermediate layer (410, “electrical connector”) is actively cooled on both sides by cooling fluid traveling through the cooling duct (304) (paragraphs [0037-0039] and figure 4).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second metal sheet (12) as a lower plate of the “cooler” and to have it positioned below the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector) such that the container (V2, “cavity”) is formed on both sides of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) and the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) penetrates the container (V2, “cavity”) in the manner taught by Mastrandrea for the purpose of actively cooling the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) from both sides and thus increasing the area available for heat transfer and increasing the cooling efficiency.
In the combination of Masson and Mastrandrea, the “cooler” comprises an upper metal sheet (12, “upper plate”) and a lower metal sheet (“lower plate”) connected to each other. Including the lower metal sheet would necessarily require the formation of through holes in the lower metal sheet in a mirror arrangement to the upper metal sheet (12) – such that there would be through holes in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) for the purpose of permitting the battery terminals (5) to pass through.
A through hole in the upper metal sheet (12) and a matching through hole in the lower metal sheet would form a configuration opening (16).
Regarding 2), Mastrandrea teaches that the busbar (300) includes two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) (paragraph [0037]). The Tutzer reference is commonly owned with Mastrandrea and directed to an analogous assembly. Tutzer explains that the two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) sandwich a layer (410-B), which electrically insulates the two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) from each other. The presence of the two mutually insulated electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) allows for selective electrical interconnections between the battery cells (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Masson’s metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) with Mastranrea and Tutzer’s busbar having two electrical connectors for the purpose of allowing versatility in the electrical connection of the battery cells.
Given the geometry of the two electrical connectors in the combination of Masson, Mastrandrea and Tutzer, there would be two electrical connectors penetrating the container (V2, “cavity”).
Regarding 3), it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to laminate an insulating material on the “cooler” of Masson as modified by Mastrandrea for the purpose of preventing unwanted electrical contact with the exposed metal of the sheets forming the “cooler”.
Regarding claim 12, Masson teaches that the “cooler” comprises a liquid inlet (14) and a liquid outlet (15) communicating with the container (V2, “cavity”). The liquid inlet (14) is configured to input the electrically insulating heat transfer liquid into the container (V2, “cavity”). The liquid outlet (15) is configured to discharge the electrically insulating heat transfer liquid from the container (V2, “cavity”) (paragraph [0156] and figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 13, Masson teaches that the liquid inlet (14) is arranged on one side of the “cooler” and the liquid outlet (15) is arranged on another side of the “cooler”, opposite to the liquid inlet (14) (figures 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 15, Masson teaches that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) includes a cooling part penetrating into the container (V2, “cavity”).
Masson teaches that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) includes a connection part exposed to the configuration openings (16) (figure 7C). An observation hole (18) is formed in the connection part (paragraph [0154] and figure 7C).
Regarding claim 16, Masson teaches a battery module (M2) that is part of the battery pack (P) (paragraph [0144]). The battery module (M2) includes a plurality of battery cells connected in parallel (paragraph [0145]). Masson teaches that battery packs (P) include multiple electrically connected battery modules. Masson gives an example of two modules (M1 and M2) connected together in series and each module having a plurality of battery cells connected together in parallel. The series connection is formed by bridging busbar (B3) (paragraphs [0027, 0028] and figure 5). The bridging busbar (B3) is a first output connector connected to a positive or negative terminal in the battery module (M2). Given the structure of the busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) of Masson as modified by Mastrandrea, the bridging busbar (B3) would extend into the “cooler”.
Masson fails to teach a second output connector.
It would be obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third battery module connected in series with the two battery modules (M1 and M2) for the purpose of increasing the voltage of the battery pack. Another module would require a second bridging busbar (“second output connector”), which would be connected to a terminal in the third battery module that would be opposite in polarity to the terminal in the second battery module. Given the structure of the busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) of Masson as modified by Mastrandrea, the second bridging busbar (B3, “second output connector”) would extend into the “cooler”.
Regarding claim 20, Masson teaches a vehicle (paragraph [0045]). The vehicle comprises a battery pack (P) (paragraph [0144]). The battery pack (P) comprises a plurality of battery cells (A1-A17) and a busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) (paragraph [0145] and figures 7A-7C, 8, 9).
The busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) comprises two metal sheets (11 and 12) (paragraph [0146] and figures 7A-7C).
Metal sheet (12) is arranged at one end of battery terminals (5) (paragraph [0157] and figures 7A and 7B). Metal sheet (12) comprises a container (V2, “cavity”) and configuration openings (16) in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) (paragraph [0146] and figures 7A, 7C, 9). The container (V2, “cavity”) is filled with a cooling medium (paragraph [0146]). The metal sheet (12) is thus considered a “cooler”.
Metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) electrically connects the battery terminals (5). A partial region of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) abuts the container (V2, “cavity”) (figure 7C). Another partial region of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) is exposed at the configuration openings (16) and is electrically connected to the battery terminals (5) at weld regions (S1) (paragraph [0148] and figure 7C). The metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) is welded in a sealed mode to a circumference of the configuration openings (16) at weld regions (S2) (paragraph [0146] and figure 7C).
An electrically insulating heat transfer liquid is arranged in the container (V2, “cavity”) and configured to cool the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) (paragraphs [0102, 0157]).
The metal sheet (12) is an upper plate. The metal sheet (12) includes a plurality of first through holes in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) (figures 7A and 7B).
Masson teaches that it is known in the art that bus bars may be laminated with one or more electrically insulating materials (paragraph [0003]).
Masson fails to teach: 1) that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) penetrates the container (V2, “cavity”) and that the “cooler” includes a lower plate; 2) that there are a plurality of electrical connectors penetrating the container (V2, “cavity”); and 3) that the “cooler” is made of an electrically insulating material.
Regarding 1), Mastrandrea teaches a similar busbar (300) comprising an intermediate electrically conductive layer (410) sandwiched by two outer layers (408A and 408B). A cooling duct (304) is defined by outer layer (408A) and outer layer (408B) and intermediate layer (410, “electrical connector”) penetrates the cooling duct (304) such that the intermediate layer (410, “electrical connector”) is actively cooled on both sides by cooling fluid traveling through the cooling duct (304) (paragraphs [0037-0039] and figure 4).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second metal sheet (12) as a lower plate of the “cooler” and to have it positioned below the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector) such that the container (V2, “cavity”) is formed on both sides of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) and the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) penetrates the container (V2, “cavity”) in the manner taught by Mastrandrea for the purpose of actively cooling the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) from both sides and thus increasing the area available for heat transfer and increasing the cooling efficiency.
In the combination of Masson and Mastrandrea, the “cooler” comprises an upper metal sheet (12, “upper plate”) and a lower metal sheet (“lower plate”) connected to each other. Including the lower metal sheet would necessarily require the formation of through holes in the lower metal sheet in a mirror arrangement to the upper metal sheet (12) – such that there would be through holes in one-to-one correspondence with the battery terminals (5) for the purpose of permitting the battery terminals (5) to pass through.
A through hole in the upper metal sheet (12) and a matching through hole in the lower metal sheet would form a configuration opening (16).
Regarding 2), Mastrandrea teaches that the busbar (300) includes two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) (paragraph [0037]). The Tutzer reference is commonly owned with Mastrandrea and directed to an analogous assembly. Tutzer explains that the two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) sandwich a layer (410-B), which electrically insulates the two electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) from each other. The presence of the two mutually insulated electrical connector layers (410-A and 410-C) allows for selective electrical interconnections between the battery cells (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Masson’s metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) with Mastranrea and Tutzer’s busbar having two electrical connectors for the purpose of allowing versatility in the electrical connection of the battery cells.
Given the geometry of the two electrical connectors in the combination of Masson, Mastrandrea and Tutzer, there would be two electrical connectors penetrating the container (V2, “cavity”).
Regarding 3), it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to laminate an insulating material on the “cooler” of Masson as modified by Mastrandrea for the purpose of preventing unwanted electrical contact with the exposed metal of the sheets forming the “cooler”.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0013480, hereinafter Masson in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0069278, hereinafter Mastrandrea and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0151923, hereinafter Tutzer as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0081308, hereinafter Capati.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 18 and 19, Masson teaches that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) is made of metal, but does not specify the type of metal.
Masson fails to teach that the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) is made of an aluminum bar.
Aluminum is widely used in busbars and interconnects in the art – see, Capati (paragraph [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select aluminum as the material of the metal sheet (11, “electrical connector”) without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Masson teaches a battery module (M2) that is part of the battery pack (P) (paragraph [0144]). The battery cells of the battery module (M2) are arranged in columns (figures 8 and 9). The busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) corresponds to the battery module (M2) and thus to a column in the battery module (M2).
Masson teaches that battery packs (P) include multiple identical battery modules electrically connected to each other by a bridging bus bar (B3) (paragraphs [0027, 0028] and figure 5).
Thus, in a second battery module (M2), there would also be a busbar (10, “battery cell connecting structure”) corresponding to a column of battery cells from the second battery module.
Masson fails to teach that the bridging bus bar is made of aluminum.
Aluminum is widely used in busbars used to connect battery modules to each other – see, Capati (paragraph [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select aluminum as the material of the bridging busbar connecting the two battery modules without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Masson, Mastrandrea and Tutzer references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA/
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights