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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the 1st line of claim 1, the status identifier should be changed from “(Original)” to “(Currently Amended)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-14 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 connecting protrusion part" bridging the 11th and 12th lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace "a connecting protrusion" with "a connecting protrusion part" in the 10th line of claim 1 to obtain proper antecedent basis.
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.
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.
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 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2020/0083502), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 1, 2023, and further in view of Rhein et al. (US 2016/0380319).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fan et al. disclose a battery module (abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0149]-[0151], [0157]-[0159], and [0168]-[0178]; and Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9-12), in which the battery module comprises the following structural features:
a battery assembly in which battery cells (103) are stacked (see Figures 1 and 2); and
a bus bar housing assembly surrounding an upper side of the battery assembly (see Figure 1B),
wherein the bus bar housing assembly includes:
a bus bar housing coupled to bus bars (163) each defining a respective bus bar body having a plate shape and surrounding an upper surface of the battery assembly, and extending downwards from opposite ends in leftward and rightward directions to surround a side surface of the battery assembly (see Figures 2A-2F).
Fan et al. fail to teach a temperature sensing part with a temperature sensor, and a voltage sensing part including a pressure sensor.
However, Rhein et al. disclose a battery module that includes a monitoring assembly (abstract; paragraphs [0017]-[0040]; and Figures 1-4), in which the battery module (100) includes temperature, voltage, and pressure sensors provided at a cover assembly (104) to be positioned via respective fixing holes (see paragraph [0021]), for the purpose of monitoring these critical operating parameters (see paragraphs [0021], [0025], [0029], and [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to include temperature, voltage, and pressure sensors to be affixed at the cover assembly, as taught by Rhein et al., into the battery module disclosed by Fan et al., in order to measure and control these critical operating parameters (Rhein et al.; see paragraphs [0021], [0025], [0029], and [0031]).
The combined teachings of Fan et al. and Rhein et al. fail to explicitly teach a connecting protrusion part from the bus bar body, with the temperature sensing part and the voltage sensing part being adhered to the connecting protrusion part.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a protrusion part, which is merely an extra bus bar part to facilitate connection, in order to provide enough space (surface area) for the temperature sensing part and the voltage sensing part to connect/adhere to additional surface area thereof. Moreover, such a design would be dependent on the configuration of the battery module, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, but such a design of increasing surface area of the bus bar body would not alter the combined structural features that are present in the teachings of Fan et al. in view of Rhein et al.
Regarding claim 2, although Fan et al. in view of Rhein et al. disclose that the bus bar body has a plate shape, the combined teachings of Fan et al. and Rhein et al. fail to explicitly teach that the bus bar body has side end bending parts bent downwards from one end of the bus bar body in one of the leftward and rightward directions. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more bending parts to be bent at any angle and direction with respect to the bus bar body and the connecting protrusion, temperature sensing, and voltage sensing parts, depending on the design choice, for the purpose of obtaining a more compact and efficient battery module.
Regarding claim 5, although the combined teachings of Fan et al. and Rhein et al. do not explicitly disclose that the bus bar housing and the voltage sensing part are joined by laser welding, it is noted that the process of which the bus bar housing and the voltage sensing part does not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim (battery module), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a number of joining/bonding connections would be possible, for the purpose of obtaining an efficient battery module connection at reduced cost.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 14, Fan et al. disclose a pair of side assemblies (first and second end plates (107,109)) located at opposite ends of the battery assembly in forward and rearward directions, but fails to explicitly teach a metal or polymer resin band member, including an upper band member configured to surround and fasten the battery assembly, the pair of side plate assemblies, and the bus bar housing assembly.
However, Fan et al. disclose a housing member (102) to hold the side end plate members (107,109) and the battery cells (103). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any durable material to surround and fasten the battery assembly in the form of one or more band members to further secure the battery module, wherein a band of a harder material would be operable to encase all components. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, although Fan et al. in view of Rhein et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the temperature sensing part is coupled to an upper side of the bus bar body, and the voltage sensing part coupled to the lower side of the bus bar body. However, since Rhein et al. disclose that the sensors are coupled to the bus bar, it would have been an obvious design choice as to which location the sensors would be coupled, since both the temperature and voltage sensing parts would provide the same output regardless of the locations of the sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a battery module that includes all structural features of independent claim 1, and further includes the following features:
wherein the bus bar housing includes a bus bar housing body, the bus bar coupled thereto, surrounding an upper surface of the battery assembly; bending part accommodating parts disposed at opposite ends of the bus bar housing body in the leftward and rightward directions, and in which the plurality of side end bending parts is accommodated; and a hook part protruding upwards while being bent from a central portion of the bus bar housing body toward an end thereof in one of the leftward and rightward directions, and adhered to an upper surface and a side surface of the bus bar body (of dependent claim 3, from which claims 4, 6, 11, and 12 further depend, and of which dependent claim 3 depends from both independent claim 1 and claim 2); and
wherein the side plate assemblies includes an outer member including an outer member body extending in the leftward and rightward directions, and a bending area, in which opposite ends of the outer member body in the forward and rearward directions are bent inwards in the forward and rearward directions, wherein the outer member includes the following: a first protruding area protruding outwards in an upper area of the outer member body; and a second protruding area spaced apart from the first protruding area downwards and protruding outwards, wherein the bus bar housing further includes a housing flange protruding outwards from side surfaces of the bus bar housing in the leftward and rightward directions, and wherein the upper band member is configured to surround an area of the outer member, disposed between the first protruding area and the second protruding area, and an area of a side surface of the bus bar housing, disposed on an upper side of the housing flange (of dependent claim 9, from which claim 10 further depends, and of which dependent 9 depends from all of independent claim 1, claim 7, and claim 8).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment and replacement drawing sheets received by the USPTO on December 4, 2025. The replacement drawing sheets overcome the prior objection to the drawings. Although the applicants have amended claims 1 and 2, the amendments to independent claim 1 raise a new 35 USC 112(b) rejection (see above section 3), and claim 1 is objected to due to an incorrect status identifier (see above section 1). Although claims 3, 4, 6, and 9-12 remain as allowable subject matter, these claims are newly also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (see above section 8). Claims 1-14 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the argument pertaining to the new limitations of independent claim 1 has been addressed in the newly underlined portions applied above in the 35 USC 103 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 December 18, 2025