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 .
The pending claims are claims 1-19. A new Non-Final Rejection is presented for the following reasons of record.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hernann et al., US 11011783.
Regarding claim 1, Hermann teaches a battery pack (abstract) terminal retention system (thermal management system; col. 9, lines 36-44), comprising: a sense lead (sense lead 114) (col. 11, lines 61-67 and col. 12, lines 1-3); and a plurality of tab terminals (bus bars) (col. 2, lines 15-21) secured directly to each other (col. 17, lines 38-44) and to the sense lead (col. 17, lines 45-58) and to the sense lead (col. 19, lines 45-56).
Regarding claim 2, Hermann teaches further comprising a cross-member (cross-members 136) (col. 19, lines 12-17), the sense lead (sense lead 114) (col. 2, lines 29-34) secured to the cross-member (cross-members 136) (col. 19, lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 3, Hermann teaches further comprising at least one heat stake (welding) (col. 11, lines 39-46; col. 15, lines 41-53) securing (“physically attachiing”) (col. 15, lines 41-53)the sense lead to the cross-members (cross-members 136) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Hermann teaches wherein the tab terminals extend through an aperture (terminals 104, 106; Fig. 3) in the cross-member (cross-members 136) when the plurality of tab terminals (terminals 104, 106) are secured directly (“physically attachiing”) (col. 15, lines 41-53) to the sense lead (sense lead 114).
Regarding claim 5, Hermann teaches wherein the cross-member (cross-members 136) is a composite material cross-members (cross-members 136) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Hermann teaches further comprising a plurality of welds (welding) (col. 11, lines 27-45) that secure the plurality of tab terminals (terminals 104, 106) (col. 6, lines 14-27) directly to the sense lead (sense lead 114) (col. 6, lines 14-27).
Regarding claim 7, Hermann teaches wherein the plurality of tab terminals (terminals 104, 106) extend from a plurality of lithium-ion battery cells (col. 21, lines 59-67).
Regarding claim 8, Hermann teaches further comprising a jumper operably coupling (0016) the sense lead (sense lead 114); to a module of a battery pack (abstract; col. 2, lines 15-34).
Regarding claim 11, Hermann teaches wherein the sense lead (sense lead 114) includes first area and a second area that is separate from the first area (Fig. 1, 2, 4) wherein the plurality of tabs (col. 11, lines 39-45) includes at least one first tab welded directly to a first area of the sense lead (col. 11, lines 39-45; col. 20, lines 57-67 and col. 21, lines 1-3), and at least one second tab welded directly to the second area (col. 11, lines 39-45; col. 20, lines 57-67 and col. 21, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Hermann teaches further comprising a plurality of welds that electrically connect together the plurality of tab terminals (col. 15, lines 41-53).
Regarding claim 14, Hermann teaches wherein the plurality of tab terminals (terminals 104, 106) includes at least two tab terminals (abstract; col. 2, lines 15-34; col. 10, lines 47-67 and col. 11, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 15, Hermann teaches a battery pack (abstract; col. 2, lines 15-35) terminal retention method securing (“physically attaching”) (col. 15, lines 41-53), a plurality of tab terminals (abstract) to a sense lead (sense lead 114) (col. 6, lines 14-27); and monitoring a voltage (col. 17, lines 45-58) using the sense lead (sense lead 114).
Regarding claim 16, Hermann teaches further comprising securing (“physically attaching”) the tab terminals to the sense lead using a plurality of welds (col. 15, lines 41-53).
Regarding claim 17, Hermann teaches further comprising folding (crimping) (col. 20, lines 57-67 and col. 21, lines 1-3), the plurality of tab terminals (abstract) over the sense lead (sense lead 114) prior to the securing (“physically attaching”) (col. 15, lines 41-53).
Regarding claim 18, Hermann teaches wherein the plurality of tab terminals (terminals 104, 106) extend from a plurality of lithium-ion battery cells (col. 21, lines 59-67).
Thus, the 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernann et al., US 11011783.
Regarding claim 9, Hermann teaches wherein the tab terminals (terminals 104, 106) have a first height and the sense lead (sense lead 114) has a second height (Fig. 1-4).
Hermann does not teach a second height that is greater than the first height.
However, The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 10, Hermann teaches a plurality of tabs (terminals 104, 106) (col. 6, lines 14-27).
Hermann does not teach at least one first tab folded over the sense lead in a first direction and at least one second tab folded over the sense lead in a second direction that is opposite the first direction.
However, the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, Hermann does not teach wherein the first tab is detached from the second area, and the second tab is detached form the first area (col. 20, lines 57-67 and col. 21, lines 1-3).
However, The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 19, Hermann does not teach further comprising securing (“physically attaching”) (col. 15, lines 41-53) at least one first terminal within the plurality of terminals (terminals 104, 106) to a first area of the sense lead (sense lead 114), and securing (“physically attaching”) (col. 15, lines 41-53) at least one second terminal within the plurality of terminals (terminals 104, 106) to a second area of the sense lead (sense lead 114), the first and second areas separate and distinct from each other (terminals 104, 106 in Fig. 3).
However, The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Roberts, US 20200185683.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights