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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on November 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 are examined herein.
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimoyama (US 20080124618). Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to a battery module comprising a lower casing (11) that accommodates battery cells (10) such that a side of each battery cell is adjacent to a side of another battery cell and ends of the cells are restrained by a side wall of the lower casing (Fig. 3). Busbars (18) are provided at the side wall of the lower casing and are configured to form an electrical connection between cells when the cells are accommodated in the lower casing (Fig. 3). An upper casing (another casing 11 as the casings are stackable, see [0023]) is configured to be coupled to the lower casing so as to form an internal space for accommodating the battery cells inside the lower casing. The lower casing comprises gap-maintaining ribs (16, 17) configured to maintain gaps between adjacent sides of the cells when the cells are accommodated in the lower casing. Regarding claim 7, the lower casing comprises multiple outlets (13, 14) formed therein (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 9, each of the gap-maintaining ribs comprises battery side conforming portions (17) and gap-maintaining portions (16) (note: one gap-maintaining rib can be defined as one portion 16 plus one portion 17). The gap maintaining portions are between adjacent battery side conforming portions, wherein each of the battery side conforming portions is configured to surround a portion of a cylindrical side of a cell, and each of the gap maintaining portions is configured to maintain a gap between sides of adjacent cells. Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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 2, 3, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama.
The reference is applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 for the reasons stated above. Further regarding claim 2, the reference teaches vertical ribs provided at the side wall and configured to protrude toward the internal space, wherein the vertical ribs are shaped to correspond to the gaps between cells when the cells are accommodated in the lower casing (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 3, the limitation “each of the vertical ribs is located to a side of where an electrode terminal of a battery cell would be when the battery cells are accommodated” is met as the ribs are generally located to a side of where the electrode terminals are.
However, the reference does not expressly teach that the upper portions of the vertical ribs comprise first inclined surfaces configured to guide cells being inserted into the lower casing toward the internal space of the lower casing as recited in claim 2.
However, the invention as a whole would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because while the reference teaches generally U-shaped cavities in between vertical ribs (Figs. 1 and 3), it would have been obvious to provide a taper or incline shape at the top of the U-shape (and thus an incline shape at the upper portion of the vertical ribs) to allow for easier guidance of the batteries into the cavities toward the bottom of the lower casing. This modification would have involved only routine skill in the art and would have thus been obvious.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites that the lower casing comprises multiple bushes and the upper casing has multiple bush holes through which the bushes are configured to penetrate. Shimoyama teaches that each of the casings (upper and lower, both 11) contain holes through which bolts or other connecting means may be inserted ([0023]).
The position is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the configuration of connecting the housings of Shimoyama. It is noted that the reference is not limited to the disclosed bolt structure, and it would have been obvious to provide a press-fit assembly to increase the ease of assembling the modular battery pack. Stated differently, the pegs (bushes) on one housing would fit in the bush holes of an adjoining housing. Accordingly, claim 10 would be rendered obvious.
Similar rationale applies to claim 13, which recites that the upper casing comprises locking protrusions configured to be elastically inserted into locking holes in the lower casing. Such a connection structure would be another way of providing a press-fit or snap-fit assembly as noted above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama in view of Baumann et al (US 6465123).
Shimoyama is applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach that each of the plurality of outlets is arranged to correspond to a gap-maintaining portion of a gap-maintaining rib of the gap-maintaining ribs.
Baumann et al. is directed to a battery pack containing cylindrical batteries and gap maintaining ribs (holders 26, 27) (Fig. 2). Slots (outlets) are provided corresponding to gap-maintaining portions of the gap-maintaining ribs (Figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). The use of the gap maintaining rib structure of Baumann in Shimoyama would have been obvious as it would have provided predictable results. Further, providing slots corresponding to the gap maintaining ribs would have provided for lower weight and increased cooling fluid ingress/egress. Accordingly, claim 8 would be rendered obvious.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoyama in view of Weinberger et al (US 20210098765).
Shimoyama is applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the lower casing comprises a voltage sensor electrically connected to the busbars (claim 11) or a temperature sensor (claim 12).
Weinberger et al. is directed to a battery module that contains cylindrical batteries. In [0022], the reference teaches that in some embodiments, the busbars are contacted to measure cell voltages, and the cells may be contacted to measure cell temperatures.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). The use of temperature and voltage sensors in battery packs is known in the art and provides many advantages, such as enhancing safety of the battery module. Accordingly, claims 11 and 12 are rendered obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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:
Claim 4 recites, among other features, that the busbars comprise inclined surfaces configured to guide electrode terminals of battery cells being inserted into the lower casing, away from the side wall of the lower casing. Shimoyama, applied above, is considered the closest prior art. The reference teaches busbars (18) that are plate-shaped and that appear to be inserted and connected by bolts to the battery terminals after the batteries are inserted. There is no apparent reason to use the claimed shape of busbars in the assembly of Shimoyama, given the geometry of the existing apparatus (cavities for batteries, slots for terminals, and slots for busbars), and the way the device is assembled.
Oda (US 6287150) is also cited herein, however the reference discloses busbars (31) contained within endplates (3), and is deficient for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
January 2, 2026