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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on November 1, 2024; May 9; 2025; July 23, 2025; November 6 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15 drawn to a battery module strap assembly including compression pads, a strap and a case with end caps, classified in H01M 50/264.
II. Claims 16-24 drawn to a method of constructing a cell stack assembly by positioning and placing the compression pads and end caps, applying a compression force and applying a tensile load to the strap classified in H01M 50/264.
Invention groups I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product in invention group I can be made by a materially different process by using straps made of metal and varying tensile loads.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone call with Michael Locklar on 10-9-2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Lithium-Ion Battery Module Strap Assembly of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-24 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant’s election without traverse is acknowledged.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities. The word “case line” is a typographical error and should be “case liner”. 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.
Claim 5 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 5 states a limitation in “a polymer of fiberglass”. Since fiber glass and polymer are distinct materials, this description is indefinite. Review of the instant specification did not reveal a special definition. Therefore, this limitation is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation as including “a polymer or a fiberglass”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14 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 14 states a limitation in stating the strap is made from “a polymer” but depends on claim 13 which has already introduced a polymer therefore it is unclear if claim 14 requires an additional polymer or intends to reference the polymer of claim 13.. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 2018/0205045 A1, hereinafter Schröder, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11532849 B2, hereinafter Kellner.
Regarding claim 1, Schröder teaches an assembly comprising a cell stack [0047], the cell stack including a plurality of cells (5, Fig. 1; [0068]), the cells separated by cell spacers (38, Fig. 2c), a lithium-ion battery module strap assembly (4, Fig.1), the cell stack (5s, Fig. 1 and 6d) positioned within the lithium-ion battery module strap assembly [0017], the lithium-ion battery module strap assembly comprising:
a case (2, Fig. 1), the case including a bottom (rear wall 10, Fig. 5; [0071]) and two sides (9, Fig. 5)
end caps at each end of the case taught as end walls (70, Fig.11a & 71, Fig. 12a)
at least one strap, the strap positioned around the cell stack and connected to each end cap (4, Fig. 1)
Schröder does not disclose a compression pad at each end of the cell stack. However, Kellner discloses a compression pad (44) at each end of the cell stack (40) of the assembly (20) (Fig. 1) in a battery module housing (Col. 2, Line 66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the compression pads at the stack ends of Kellner in Schröder’s battery housing to provide high compressibility together with a small residual block size, as taught by Kellner (Col 1, Line 40) as the skilled artisan recognizes the need to protect the cells within an assembly (Kellner: col. 1, lines 30-35).
Regarding Claim 2, Schröder discloses that the case is rectangular (6, Fig.6b; [0070])
Regarding Claim 4, Schröder describes a case (housing) insulated by a case liner, by disclosing the plastic of the battery module hosing parts is glass fiber reinforced [0039], providing insulation.
Regarding Claim 5, Schröder teaches that the case liner that is a glass-fiber -reinforced polyamide [0039].
Regarding Claim 7, Schröder discloses that the end caps/walls (70, Fig. 11a & 71, Fig. 12a) and housing parts are constructed of non-conductive plastic [0043].
Regarding Claim 8, Schröder discloses end caps/walls are strengthened with a rod (rib-like structure) [0041].
Regarding Claim 9, Schröder discloses each end cap includes a terminal integrated into the end cap (55, Fig 6c).
Regarding Claim 10, Schröder discloses each end cap includes an end cap indent (recesses) (25, Fig 6c) adapted to receive the strap [0126].
Regarding Claim 11, Schröder teaches the assembly further includes a carrier tray (48, Fig. 7), the carrier tray is positioned atop the cell stack and between the sides of the case and the end caps [0092].
Regarding Claim 12, Schröder teaches that the carrier tray (48, Fig. 7)) includes strap guides/recess (61, Fig. 7). The examiner notes that given the broadest reasonable interpretation any recess including 48 is capable of acting as guides and the claimed invention does not require a strap present in/through the claimed guides.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schröder & Kellner as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of CHAMBERLAIN II TW-I509863-B, hereinafter CHAMBERLAIN.
Regarding Claim 3, Schröder does not teach the case is constructed of anodized aluminum. However, CHAMBERLAIN teaches a battery case made of anodized aluminum [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use CHAMBERLAIN’s anodized aluminum case in Schröder’s case to maintain the life of the battery pack [0042].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schröder and Kellner as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Kim US-20230327254-A1, hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 6, Schröder does not teach compression pads that are comprised of a silicone foam. However, Kim teaches compression pads made of silicone foam [0067]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Kim’s silicone compression pads in Schröder’s battery housing to achieve high elastomeric properties and durability [0068].
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schröder & Kellner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patent No. CN105789507B, hereinafter Bai.
Regarding Claim 13 Schröder & Kellner teach all the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach the strap is made from tensile steel, stainless steel, or a polymer. However, Bai teaches a battery pack assembly comprising a stack of battery cells (Page 1; [0003]) similarly contained by a strap wherein the strap is made from a polymer and the polymer is a polyester (Page 4; [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the polymer strap of Bai for Schröder’s strap to provide a tensile load capacity exceeding a predetermined expansion load of the battery cell, as taught by Bai (Page 1; [0003]) with a reasonable expectation of similar results when using an art recognized material for a strap performing the same function MPEP 2144).
Regarding Claim 14, Schröder & Kellner teach all the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach a strap made from a polymer. However, Bai teaches a battery pack assembly comprising a stack of battery cells (Page 1; [0003]) similarly contained by a strap wherein the strap is made from a polymer and the polymer is a polyester (Page 4; [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the polymer strap of Bai for Schröder’s strap to provide a tensile load capacity exceeding a predetermined expansion load of the battery cell, as taught by Bai (Page 1; [0003]) with a reasonable expectation of similar results when using an art recognized material for a strap performing the same function MPEP 2144).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schröder, Kellner & Bai applied to claim 13 and 1 above, and further in view of CN115832573A, hereinafter Murakami & CN109778061A, hereinafter FENG.
Regarding Claim 15, Schröder, Kellner & Bai teach all the limitations of claim 13 yet fail to teach and a strap made from tensile steel or stainless-steel including rivets. FENG teaches a battery holder comprising a stainless-steel strap [0001] but does not teach rivets. However, Murakami teaches a battery holder band with a rivet (Page 3; [0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the stainless steel strap with rivets of FENG & Murakami for Schröder’s battery strap in order to ensure good tensile strength, as taught by FENG [0006] and ensure the strap is securely joined together, as taught by Murakami (Page 3; [0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELGE S PEIRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 on (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.
/TELGE SHAVINDA PEIRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724