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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 15, 17 are amended.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 5/15/2026 have been entered.
Claim rejection under 35 USC 102, and 35 USC 103 from previous office action have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to Claim 1.
Examiner Notes
Examiner notes that the term “shroud” is defined as something that covers, screens or guards (per “Shroud.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shroud. Accessed 29 Jul. 2026).
Examiner notes that the term “brace” is defined as ‘to furnish or support; to make stronger’ (per “Brace.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brace. Accessed 29 Jul. 2026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 4, 10, 13, 17-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagida et al (US 20200280153 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Yanagida teaches a traction battery assembly (battery pack installed in a vehicle; Paragraph 0053) comprising: a shroud providing a channel that receives at least one busbar (annotated Figure 3 below shows the shroud with a channel that holds the busbar);
and a plug that is at least partially received within the channel (annotated figure 3) and engages the shroud to brace the shroud. Yanagida teaches in Paragraph 0048 that that the plug (protector portion 30) has lock receiving portions 32 that receive lock portions 42 of the shroud (cover 40). This is akin to the plug engaging the shroud, and bracing or providing support to the shroud.
PNG
media_image1.png
240
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, and Claim 11,
Yanagida teaches that the shroud includes a plurality of longitudinally extending ribs configured to retain the plug (annotated figure 1 below, and Figure 3, element 32). Similarly, Yanagida teaches lock portions 42 on the cover 40 (akin to the plug including a plurality of ribs configured to engage with corresponding ribs of the shroud). It is seen in Figure 1 and Figure 3 that the elements 32 and 42 engage with each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
430
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10,
Yanagida teaches that the shroud is engaged by press-fitting the plug to the channel (Paragraph 0058; when coupling the cover 40 to the protector portion 30, it is possible to automatically apply a pressure from the pressure contact surface).
Regarding Claim 13,
Yanagida teaches that the plug and the shroud are the same material (Paragraph 0052; synthetic resins that compose the protector portion 30 and the cover 40).
Regarding Claim 17,
Yanagida teaches a traction battery busbar assembly and a method wherein one busbar is positioned within a channel of shroud (Paragraph 0048; the protector portion 30 has the busbar mounting surface 31 on which the live portion 22 of the busbar is to be mounted); and after the positioning, bracing the shroud with a plug that engages the shroud (Paragraph 0048; the protector portion 30 has lock receiving portions, an example of a “coupling receiving portion”, 32 that receive lock portions 42 of the cover 40).
Regarding Claim 18,
Yanagida shows in annotated Figure 3 that the shroud is a U-shaped shroud.
PNG
media_image1.png
240
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19,
Yanagida teaches that the shroud is engaged by press-fitting the plug to the channel (Paragraph 0058; when coupling the cover 40 to the protector portion 30, it is possible to automatically apply a pressure from the pressure contact surface).
Regarding Claim 21,
Yanagida teaches at least one busbar is received within the channel (annotated Figure 3 above shows the shroud with a channel that holds the busbar).
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.
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 2, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida et al.
Yanagida teaches the shroud has a U- shaped cross-sectional profile (annotated figure 3 shows the shroud as a U-shaped cross sectional profile), wherein the plug is at least partially received within the channel (shown in annotated Figure 3). The limitation related to “configured to resist inward flexing of walls of the shroud when forces are applied to the shroud” defines the plug by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of the claim 2. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Furthermore, Yanagida states that the abutment portion includes a pressure contact surface that is in direct or indirect contact with the surface of the live portion while being pressed against the surface of the live portion in a state in which the cover is coupled to the protector portion (Paragraph 0006). The instant specification states that the plug reinforces the shroud helping to prevent the shroud from flexing inward against the busbars in response to forces F (battery cells exert force F when they expand over time). The plug when engaged with the shroud helps to resist the sides of the shroud from folding inward. The type of structure as shown in Yanagida has a plug that engages with the shroud and is capable of resisting inward flexing of walls when forces are applied to the shroud. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the structure of Yanagida is configured to resist inward flexing of walls of the shroud when forces are applied to the shroud to provide protection to the busbar.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida in view of Yang et al (US 2024/0322322 A1; effective filing date 6/3/2022).
Yanagida teaches that the shroud can be disposed in any position in a vehicle (Paragraph 0056). Hence, Yanagida does not limit the position of the shroud. Yanagida does not specifically teach that the shroud is disposed between a first cell stack and a second cell stack.
However, Yang teaches a protective frame 200 (akin to a shroud that holds a busbar) along with auxiliary frame 600 formed to extend across the pack case and installed in the center of the pack case (Paragraph 0052). There is a first battery part 140a formed on one side of the protective frame, and a second battery part formed on the other side of the protective frame. This is akin to the first and second cell stack. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the busbar protection member of Yanagida in a location as shown by Yang in order to provide a battery pack capable of preventing a busbar and a measurement wire, etc. installed inside the battery pack from being damaged or short-circuited when a high temperature and high pressure gas is emitted from a battery module (Paragraph 0010).
PNG
media_image3.png
557
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida et al in view of McCauley et al (US 20150311654 A1), further in view of Lee et al (US 20230282931 A1).
Yanagida does not teach that the shroud is an extruded shroud, made of aluminum, and the plug being an extruded plug made of the same material as the shroud, and also made of aluminum. Yanagida does teach a busbar that is received within the channel of the shroud, but does not teach that the busbar includes an electrically isolating coating.
However, McCauley teaches an electrical distribution system that comprises a busway section. The busway comprises a protective casing which is formed by an extrusion process and formed from a metal such as aluminum (Paragraph 0033). Furthermore, Lee teaches a cover for a busbar assembly in a battery assembly such that the cover is made of aluminum or resin compound in order to protect the cell stack and the busbar assembly from external impact (Paragraph 0072). Hence, aluminum and resin are alternatives that can be utilized for making the busbar cover (shroud and plug). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the shroud and plug in Yanagida with aluminum using an extrusion process as stated in McCauley in order to form a support or casing for the busway or busbars (Paragraph 0033). Lee provides motivation that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another (i.e. resin for aluminum), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (i.e. protection for external impact).
McCauley also teaches that the busbars are supported within one or more electrically insulating bodies formed from an electrically insulating material (Paragraph 0033). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an electrically isolating coating on the busbar in order to improve the safety and reliability of electrical distribution systems (Paragraph 0006).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida et al in view of Yang et al, and in view of Frey et al (US 8663824 B1).
Yanagida teaches a traction battery assembly of claim 1, and Yang teaches that the battery pack has a case (Figure 1, Element 100; Paragraph 0043) that holds the shroud and the plug, but does not specifically teach about the shroud extending longitudinally in a direction aligned with a longitudinal axis of an electrified vehicle. The use of a battery pack (as shown in Yang) for electric vehicles is well known, and the positioning of battery packs in electric vehicles is also known in the art.
This type of positioning is further seen in Figure 2 in Frey. It shows the positioning of a battery pack within a vehicle such that the direction of extension of the middle element 205 is in the longitudinal axis of the electric vehicle. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the battery pack of Yang in the direction as shown in Frey in order to provide a suitable configuration of battery pack placement for an electric vehicle.
PNG
media_image4.png
409
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art references cited in this action do not provide any indication of the claimed limitations related to the ratio of height of the inserted portion to a width of the inserted portion of the plug being greater than 0.5. Yanagida does not provide any relationship between the height of the inserted portion to a width of the inserted portion of the plug. Yang teaches a plug but does not teach the inserted portion of the plug. McCauley and Frey also do not teach such features as claimed in Claim 15 and Claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In view of the amendment to Claim 1, new prior art of Yanagida referenced in this office action.
Applicant argues that Yang does not teach a plug that is at least partially received within the channel and engages the shroud to brace the shroud. Examiner points to rejection of Claim 1 above that relies on prior art of Yanagida to show a structure wherein the plug is atleast partially received within the channel.
Applicant argues that the frame in Yang is not characterized as a shroud. Examiner points that a shroud is defined as something that covers, screens or guards. Instant specification does not provide any other definition of the term “shroud”. Hence, any cover structure is akin to a shroud which is described in the rejection above based on Yanagida.
Applicant argues that Yang does not teach the other limitations of Claim 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 17-19. Based on amendments to Claim 1, examiner points to new grounds of rejection based on Yanagida in 102 rejection section above which covers these limitations.
Applicant argues that Carlson does not teach the limitations of Claim 1, 2, 20. Based on amendments to Claim 1, Examiner points to new grounds of rejection based on Yanagida in 103 rejection section above which covers these limitations.
References of Interest
Examiner notes the following references of interest pertinent to the claimed invention
Reimer et al (US 20210197689 A1)
Probert et al (US 20210143377 A1)
Okazaki et al (US 20200403209 A1)
Yaita et al (US 20180277969 A1)
Cho et al (US 20150295280 A1)
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 SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783 /MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
