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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/28/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 07/29/2025
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the third section is made of a different material than that of the first section and/or the second section”. Nowhere in the specification shows this limitation. The instant application only recites “the first section 11, the second section 12, and the third section 13 are all conductors” and “the third section 13 is made of a fragile material”. The specification does not show the third section having different material than that of first and second section.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrier et al (PG Pub 20050077878), and further in view of Kim (PG Pub 20190006652).
Regarding claim 1, Carrier teaches an apparatus comprising:
a first member (1410, 1401b, 1501) and a second member 1408 sequentially stacked along a first direction, wherein the first member is conductive [fig 16A-B]. it is noted that the term “conductive” would be thermal or electrically conductive. In this case, since the cell is in thermal contact, the first member is considered to be thermal conductive.
the first member comprises a first section, a second section, and a third section; the first section and the second section are spaced apart, and the third section is connected to the first section and the second section separately [fig 16A-B see drawing below];
the second member comprises a protrusion extending toward the first member; viewed along the first direction, the boss at least partly overlaps the third section [fig 16A-B];
along the first direction, the boss and the third section are interspaced with a clearance, the first member and the second member are configured to approach each other, and the protrusion is configured to press against and pressed by the third section to fracture the third section [fig 16A-B]
the third section (air) is made of a different material than that of the first section and/or the second section; and
the first member further comprises a first insulating part and a second insulating part jointly clamping the third section, a first through-hole is provided on at least the second insulating part along the first direction, and the third section is fully exposed in the first through-hole [fig 16AB see drawing below]
PNG
media_image1.png
774
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carrier et al teaches the protrusion as set forth above, but Carrier does not teach the protrusion being boss shape.
Kim teaches a battery module comprising a protrusion 261 being formed by boss shape and extended to through hole [fig 16 para 135].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the protrusion of Carrier et al to be the boss shape as taught by Kim since such a shape for the structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed item was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The recitation “configured to… third section” is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2111. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, modified Carrier et all teaches third member (spring) 1410 being disposed between first and second member [fig 16A B]
Regarding claim 4, modified Jang teaches the third member comprises a first part and a second part, the first part and the second part are spaced apart from each other, viewed along the first direction, the first part and the second part are located on two sides of the boss [fig 14A B, Carrier et al].
Regarding claim 5, modified Jang teaches a first hole is provided on the third member; and viewed along the first direction, the boss is at least partly located in the first hole, and the first hole is configured to enable the boss to pass through the first hole and contact the third section when the second member is subjected to an acting force toward the first member [fig 16B Carrier et al].
Regarding claim 12. Modified Carrier teaches a spike portion is disposed at an end of the boss and oriented toward the first member [fig16AB,Carrier et al and fig 16, Kim].
Regarding claim 13, modified Jang teaches the third member (spring) being elastic [fig 16A B, Carrier et al].
Regarding claim 14, modified Jang teaches an insulating material (air)is disposed on a side of the third member close to the first member [fig 16AB]
Regarding claim 15, modified Carrier et al teaches battery module, comprising a housing and a cell assembly, wherein the cell assembly is accommodated in the housing, wherein the battery module further comprises the safety switch, and the circuit connection apparatus is electrically connected to the cell assembly [claim33 41]
Regarding claim 16, modified Carrier teaches the cell assembly comprises plurality of cells, the plurality of cells are stacked sequentially along the first direction, and the circuit connection apparatus is disposed between two adjacent cells [claim 41-43].
Regarding claim 17, modified Carrier et al teaches plurality of cell and the circuit connection apparatus is disposed between an inner wall of the housing and the cell assembly along the first direction [fig 16A B]
Regarding claim 19, modified Carrier et al teaches each cell comprises two tabs, the first section being connected to one tab of one cell, the second section being connected to the other tab of the cell [fig 16AB]
Claim(s) 6-11, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrier et al (PG Pub 20050077878) and Kim (PG Pub 20190006652) and further in view of Jang (PG pub 20110037430),
Regarding claim 6, modified Carrier et al teaches teach the first insulating part the third section is disposed on the first insulating part, the first section comprises a first connecting portion disposed on the first insulating part and the second section comprises a second connecting portion disposed on the first insulating part [fig 16AB]. However, modified Carrier et al does not teach the first and second extending part as claimed.
Jang et al teaches the first member further comprises a first insulating part, the third section is disposed on the first insulating part, the first section comprises a first connecting portion disposed on the first insulating part and a first extending portion extends out of the first insulating part, and the second section comprises a second connecting portion disposed on the first insulating part and a second extending portion extends out of the first insulating part [fig 4 para 32 74-76 see drawing below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the first section of modified Carrier et al to be included the first and second extending portion as taught by Jang et al since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
PNG
media_image2.png
779
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, modified Carrier et al teaches the first insulating part and the second insulating part are stacked along the first direction and jointly clamp the first connecting portion, the second connecting portion, and the third section [fig 16AB]
Regarding claim 8, modified Carrier et al teaches the boss is configured to directly puncture the second insulating part [fig 14A of Carrier et al]
Regarding claim 9, a first through- hole is provided on at least the second insulating part along the first direction, and the third section is at least partly exposed in the first through-hole; and viewed along the first direction, the boss is located in the first through-hole, and the first through-hole is configured to enable the boss to pass through the first through- hole and contact the third section when the first member is subjected to an acting force toward the second member [ Fig 16AB Carrier et al]
Regarding claim 10, modified Carrier et al teaches the first insulating part, the second insulating part, the first section and the second section as set forth above. The recitation “are made by injection molding” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 11, modified Carrier et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Carrier et al does not teach the first and second insulating member being made of insulating material
Jang teaches the first and second insulating member being made of insulating material [para 74-76, Jang].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the first and second insulating member of modified Carrier et al to be made of insulating material as taught by Jang et al since Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified Carrier et al the cell is a pouch cell [fig 16AB].
Regarding claim 20, modified Carrier et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Carrier et al does not teach the battery being used in vehicle.
Jang taches the battery cell being used in vehicle (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the battery of modified Carrier being used in vehicle since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrier et al (PG Pub 20050077878), and Kim (PG Pub 20190006652) and further in view of Rouillard et al (Pat No. 6120930)
Regarding claim 3, modified Carrier et al teaches the third member being spring as set forth above, but modified Carrier et al does not teach the third member comprising foam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the spring of modified Jang to be comprised of foam as taught by Rouillard et al since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
None of cited references teaches the claimed amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Modified Carrier et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights