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 2, 7, 8, 20 are amended.
Claim 21 is new.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/4/2025 have been entered.
Claim objection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments
Claim rejection under 35 USC 103 from previous office action have been withdrawn in view of the arguments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 17-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al (US 2024/0322322 A1; effective filing date 6/3/2022).
Regarding Claim 1,
Yang teaches a battery pack with a structure capable of protecting busbars installed inside the battery pack (Paragraph 0001). The battery pack in Yang is formed by connecting a plurality of battery cells in series/parallel to form a battery module, and then connecting a plurality of battery modules to increase capacity, power output etc (Paragraph 0004; traction battery assembly). In figure 1 (annotated below), the battery pack assembly is seen, along with the positioning of a protective shroud (Figure 1, Element 200).
PNG
media_image1.png
557
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, in Figure 7 (annotated below) it can be seen that there is an auxiliary frame (Element 600) which is akin to a shroud, and it comprises auxiliary slot (Element 610) which is akin to a channel. The auxiliary slot/channel receives a busbar (Paragraph 0103). The element 200 in Figure 7 shows a plug that engages the shroud to brace the shroud.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, and Claim 11,
Yang shows in Figure 7 (annotated), that there are protrusions on the auxiliary frame which are annotated to be the ribs on the shroud. These ribs run lengthwise along the central portion where the protective shroud is located in Figure 1. Figure 7 also shows the location of the ribs of the plug (annotated), and they are engaging with the corresponding ribs on the shroud.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6,
Yang teaches that the protective frame 200 along with auxiliary frame 600 is formed to extend across the pack case and is 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.
Regarding Claim 10,
Yang teaches that the protective frame 200 is coupled with the auxiliary frame 600 to cover the busbar (Paragraph 0109). From Figure 7 (annotated below), it is seen that there is a portion on the protective frame that is engaged and would require some pressure to be installed (press-to-fit).
PNG
media_image3.png
300
159
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 18, Claim 19,
Yang teaches a method of the sequential steps of the coupling of the auxiliary frame and the protective frame, and the insertion and seating of each busbar (illustrated in Figure 9). The method comprises step of inserting output busbar into auxiliary slot of frame, and then coupling the protective frame with the auxiliary frame (Paragraph 0109). This is akin to positioning one busbar within the channel of shroud, and then bracing the shroud with a plug as claimed.
Yang teaches that the shroud and the channel within the shroud is u-shaped as seen in Figure 7. Yang teaches that the protective frame 200 is coupled with the auxiliary frame 600 to cover the busbar (Paragraph 0109). From Figure 7 (annotated below), it is seen that there is a portion on the protective frame that is engaged and would require some pressure to be installed (press-to-fit).
PNG
media_image3.png
300
159
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21,
Yang teaches that the auxiliary slot/channel receives a busbar (Paragraph 0103).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al (US Patent 4,008,365).
Regarding Claim 1,
Carlson teaches a bus tray system that provides safe insulation, and substantial mechanical support of terminals (Column 2, Lines 25-32). The bus tray system is able to make open elongated trays for extended electrical conductors to be totally enclosed and compressed by secured covers (Column 2, Lines 50-55). Carlson does not specifically state the use of the bus tray system in a traction battery assembly, but it would be obvious to use the bus tray assembly since battery packs universally employ the use of busbars, and related electrical connections in order to transfer power to and from the battery. Carlson teaches the assembly shown in Figure 1 below wherein Element 40 is the tray (shroud that has a u-shaped channel), and it holds the busbars 30, 31, and 32 (stacked). Carlson also shows in Figure 1 that there is a cover (Element 60; plug) which engages the tray (shroud) to brace the tray.
PNG
media_image4.png
549
760
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, and Claim 20,
Carlson teaches that the tray 40 has a U-shaped cross sectional profile as seen in Figure 1. The figure also shows that the cover 60 (plug) is within the channel of the tray. 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). Carlson teaches the claimed structure (and provides further reinforcing structure such as stiffener channels Element 80), and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding Claim 7,
Carlson teaches the presence of insulation 33 on the bus bars (Column 5, Lines 22-25).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 12, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al in view of McCauley et al (US 20150311654 A1).
Yang does not specifically 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. Yang teaches that the protective frame is made of a flame retardant material since it is used for the purpose of resisting high temperature and pressure emitted by the battery module (Paragraph 0063). Aluminum is considered a flame resistant material, and is a non-combustible metal. Hence, the use of aluminum would be a suitable option in Yang as a flame retardant material.
Furthermore, 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). 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 form the shroud and plug in Yang with aluminum using an extrusion process as stated in McCauley in order to form an electrically insulating material support for the busway or busbars (Paragraph 0033).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al in view of Frey et al (US 8663824 B1).
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_image5.png
409
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 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 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. Yang teaches a plug but does not teach the inserted portion of the plug. Similarly, Carlson does not teach this ratio relationship explicitly for the busbar holder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon second review Examiner has issued a new non-final action, with rejection in view of Yang et al.
Applicant argues that the structure in Choi does not have a shroud and channel for a busbar. Examiner agrees with this, and has withdrawn the rejection of Claim 1. The new rejection relies on the prior art of Yang which shows the shroud, channel, and plug structure for busbar protection.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine the structure of Choi with the strut hanger listing. Examiner agrees with this, and relies on Yang in this office action to show the claimed structure.
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
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