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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 23-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 23 appears to mainly describes a process for positioning the busbar in the pocket (i.e., wherein the busbar is initially supported within the pocket upon at least one ledge, and upon insertion of a battery cell terminal into the pocket and into contact with the busbar, the busbar is displaced away from the at least one ledge while remaining unattached to the carrier frame and the cap.). In addition, it appears that in claims 23-24 the busbar is away from the at least one edge while in the group of claims 1-15, the busbar move relative to the at least one edge. Similarly, claim 25 differs from claims 1-15 in that the carrier frame defines “a recess having a base surface and opposing side surfaces”. In addition, the drawings do not show the features of the invention specified in these claims (i.e., a base surface, side surfaces).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 23-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 were rejected in the Office Action from 10/29/2025. Claims 16-20 were withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant filed a response on 01/15/2026, amended claims 1-15, cancelled claims 16-20, and added claims 21-25. Claims 23-25 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are currently pending in the application, of claims 23-25 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-15 and 21-22 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argue that Shigita fails to disclose the pocket feature configured to receive the busbar as recited and further argue that there is no teaching that the cover of Shigita contain the busbar (see page 5 of Applicant remarks from 01/15/2026).
Examiner respectfully disagree. Shigita explicitly teaches the claimed features. As referenced in the previous Office Action, paragraph [0032] Shigita teaches a carrier frame 22 (corresponds to a case body), busbar housing portion 23 (corresponds to a pocket) having a frame shape in which the busbar is housed (corresponds to configured to receive the busbar) (see also figure 2 depicting pocket 23, also referenced in the previous Office Action). Further, Shigita teaches that the cover 26 covers the busbar 12 (corresponds to contain the busbar within the pocket).
Applicant further argue that there is no teaching of a ledge extending into the alleged pocket of Shigita (see page 5 of Applicant remarks from 01/15/2026).
Examiner respectfully disagree. Shigita explicitly teaches the claimed features. As referenced in the previous Office Action, paragraphs [0040]-[0041]) teach frame portions 22a and 22b (corresponds to a ledge). As it can be seen from enlarged view of figure 1, the frame portions extend into the pocket.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
1137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues, in reference to claim 12, that there would be no reason for a skilled artisan to modify Shigita to include an enclosure piece as a second, superfluous cover as it already includes a cover (see page 6 of Applicant remarks from 01/15/2026).
Examiner respectfully disagree. As an initial matter, the claim does not define or specify what “a piece of enclosure” is. The term is generic and could be interpreted as merely a piece of component “enclosing” the battery which is very common in batteries configurations. If there is a cap, there must necessarily be an “enclosure” to use the cap and “enclose” something. Further, in battery pack technology, “enclosing” is a standard structural feature used for example, to protect the cells, maintain mechanical integrity, and allow integration with other pack components (frame, busbar, cap, etc.) or integration of the battery module into a larger system (e.g., a vehicle). Shigita already teaches the plurality of battery cells, carrier frame, cap and busbar arrangement, the addition of a “piece of enclosure” would typically be considered a routine design feature that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include in order to “enclose” the battery.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shigita (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0302449).
Regarding claim 1, Shigita teaches a traction battery assembly (i.e., battery) (paragraph [0029]), comprising:
a busbar (12) (paragraph [0032]) (see figures 1-2);
a carrier frame (i.e., case body) (22) (paragraph [0038]) having a pocket (i.e., busbar housing portion) (23) (paragraph [0038]) configured to receive the busbar (see figures 1-2); and
a cap (i.e., cover) (26) (paragraph [0037], [0041]) secured to the carrier frame and configured to contain the busbar within the pocket (i.e., cover 26 attached to the case body 22) (paragraph [0041]-[0042]) (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shigita teaches the assembly further comprising at least one ledge (i.e., frame portions) (22a-22c) (paragraph [0038]) of the carrier frame, the ledge extending into the pocket to support the busbar (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Shigita teaches the busbar is sandwiched between the at least one ledge and the cap (paragraph [0040]-[0041]) (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Shigita teaches the pocket is a first pocket and the busbar is a first busbar (see figure 1 below), and further comprising a second busbar held within a second pocket (i.e., plurality of busbars) (paragraph [0032], [0036], [0038]) (see figure 1 one below), the cap (26) secured to the carrier frame (22) and configured to contain the first busbar within the first pocket and the second busbar within the second pocket (i.e., cover 26 attached to the case body 22) (paragraph [0041]-[0042]) (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
684
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Shigita teaches the pocket (23) opens to a first side of the carrier frame (22) and to an opposite second side of the carrier frame (22), the first side configured to face a plurality of battery cells (2) (paragraph [0030]) when the carrier frame is installed within a traction battery pack, the second side configured to face away from the plurality of battery cells (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
674
615
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Shigita teaches a shielding layer (i.e., flexible printed circuit) (paragraph [0044]-[0045]) covering portions of the busbar exposed through the pocket (see figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigita (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0302449), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of DeKeuster et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0271394).
Regarding claim 4, Shigita teaches the traction battery assembly including the busbar as described above in claims 1-3.
Shigita does not teach the busbar is configured to move relative to the ledge and the cap when the busbar is sandwiched between the at least one ledge and the cap that is secured to the carrier frame.
DeKeuster, also directed to a traction battery assembly (i.e., battery module) with a busbar (120) (paragraph [0048]), teaches an assembly with a cap (i.e., lid or cover) (paragraph [0048]) and a ledge (see figure 4), wherein the busbar is configured to move relative to the ledge and the cap when the busbar is sandwiched between the at least one ledge and the cap (i.e., flexibility may allow for movement of the bus bar) (paragraph [0011]) (see figure 4). Further, DeKeuster teaches the movement of the bus bar allows a stress-relief feature and management of thermal challenges (paragraph [0011]-[0014]).
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 modify Shigita to have the busbar configured to move relative to the ledge and the cap when the busbar is sandwiched between the at least one ledge and the cap that is secured to the carrier frame in order to allow a stress-relief feature and management of thermal challenges as suggested by DeKeuster.
As to the claim language “in response to a terminal contacting the busbar”, such is considered a functional language and does not further define the structure of the busbar or battery assembly. Instead, it describes the condition that causes the already-recited movement. The structure required by the claim is simply that the busbar is capable of moving relative to the ledge and the cap while being sandwiched between them. Because Shigita as modify by DeKeuster discloses the busbar is capable of relative movement, it could move when contacted by a terminal, as such contact would apply force to the busbar and cause displacement permitted by the disclose configuration. As such, the prior art satisfies the functional limitation. Since the prior art already teaches the busbar positioned between structural elements while allowing relative movement for a stress-relief feature and management of thermal challenges, the recited condition that the movement occurs “in response to a terminal contacting the busbar” merely describes the predictable result of the disclosed structure if subjected to interaction with a terminal.
PNG
media_image5.png
388
621
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12-13, Shigita teaches the traction battery assembly with the carrier frame, the cap and the busbar as described above in clam 1. Shigita does not explicitly articulate battery assembly having an enclosure cover as recited in the instant claim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a case or housing as an enclosure cover to enclose and join the battery cells and associated components. Battery enclosure covers or housings are well known and conventional in the art for providing mechanical protection, electrical insulation, and environmental sealing of the battery assemblies. Incorporating such an enclosure case would represent a predictable design choice that yields the expected benefits of protecting the internal battery components from damage and external contaminates, as well as maintaining electrical and thermal stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Shigita to include an enclosure cover enclosing and joining the battery components as such arrangement is a common and routine future in battery assemblies and further consistent with the reasoning that the combination of known elements (i.e., enclosure or case) according to their established functions (i.e., contain or enclose battery components) is deemed obvious. Nonetheless, DeKeuster evidences the use of an enclosure cover (i.e., housing) (100) configured for joining and enclosing the battery components (paragraph [0045]-[0047], [0050]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Shigita teaches the traction battery assembly as described above in claim 1 including the carrier frame.
Shigita does not explicitly articulate the specifics of the carrier frame that includes at least one battery cell venting channel.
Nonetheless, DeKeuster teaches the battery includes a battery cell venting channel (i.e., vent path) which allows the scape of gases or fluids (paragraph [0045]).
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 modify the carrier frame of Shigita to include a venting channel as taught by DeKeuster in order to allow the scape of gases or fluids.
Claim(s) 6 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigita (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0302449), as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of DeKeuster et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0271394) and AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art).
Regarding claim 6, as indicated above, DeKeuster teaches a traction battery assembly having a busbar having flexibility or configured to move relative to surrounding structures such as the leg and the cap allowing stress-relief features and thermal management. The recited feature of the busbar “configured to float” merely describes another way of relative movement or flexibility, as taught in DeKeuster, between mechanical components to accommodate dimensional or thermal variation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the busbar of Shigita, so that the busbar floats, thereby permitting relative movement and achieving the same stress-relief and thermal management benefits taught in DeKeuster.
As to the limitation “detached from both the carrier frame and the cap such that the busbar”, it is interpreted that if the busbar floats or move, as articulated above, it must necessarily be detached from both the carrier frame and the cap such that the busbar. However, as indicted by AAPA, “in the past, busbars that were directly secured to a busbar carrier may have been detached from any enclosure piece so the busbars are not loaded” (see paragraph [0054]). It is interpreted by “in the past”, that such feature is previously known. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of AAPA, to have the busbar detached from both the carrier frame and the cap such that the busbar is configured to float within the pocket in order so that the busbar is not loaded.
Regarding claims 21-22, similar to claim 6 above, it is interpreted that if the busbar floats or move, as articulated above, it must necessarily be detached from both the carrier frame and the cap such that the busbar. However, as indicted by AAPA, “in the past, busbars that were directly secured to a busbar carrier may have been detached from any enclosure piece so the busbars are not loaded” (see paragraph [0054]). It is interpreted by “in the past”, that such feature is previously known and conventional in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of AAPA, to have the busbar detached from both the carrier frame and the cap and detached from both the at least one edge and the cap such that that the busbar is not loaded.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigita (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0302449), as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0113170).
Regarding claim 5, Shigita teaches the traction battery assembly including the cap and the carrier frame as described above in claim 1.
Shigita does not teach the cap is secured to the carrier frame with at least one heat stake.
Wu, also directed to a traction battery assembly (i.e., storage structure) (paragraph [0023]), teaches a cap (i.e., cover) and a carrier frame (i.e., connector) and further teaches a number of heat stakes in order to secure or tightly interpose the cap and the carrier frame (paragraph [0024]).
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 modify Shigita and have a heat stake between the cap and the carrier frame in order to secure the components as suggested by Wu.
Claim(s) ------------5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigita (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0302449), as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Shaffer, II et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0077545).
Regarding claim 5 and 9, Shigita teaches the traction battery assembly including the cap and the carrier frame as described above in claim 1.
Shigita does not teach the cap is secured to the carrier frame with at least one heat stake or that the carrier frame is adhesively secured to a plurality of battery cells.
Shaffer, also directed to a traction battery assembly (i.e., bipolar battery assembly) (title), teaches battery components attachments or bonding methods include adhesives, (paragraph [0021]) and weld or heat stake (paragraph [0011], [0035], [0054]).
Consequently, 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 in Shigita a heat steak and an adhesive as such are known mechanisms to attach or bond components in the battery assembly as taught by Shaffer.
Regarding claims 10-11, Shigita teaches the busbars are configured to contact at least one terminal (4) of the plurality of battery cells (paragraph [0033]-[0034], [0051]), the at least terminal extending into the pocket (see figures 1-2 above). Regarding the limitation “the at least one terminal is welded to the busbar.”, as indicated above in claim 9, Shaffer teaches battery components attachments or bonding methods include adhesives, (paragraph [0021]) and weld or heat stake (paragraph [0011], [0035], [0054]). Consequently, 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 in Shigita a welding method as such is a known mechanism to attach or bond components in the battery assembly as taught by Shaffer.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jeon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0203032). Jeong teaches a busbar 15 having positional movement in a pocket (i.e., gap) on a carrier frame (i.e., plate) (paragraph [0045]).
Suzuki (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0173189). Suzuki teaches a battery assembly having a busbar (7) (paragraph , [0026], [0029]), a pocket where the busbar is received (see figure 2), and a lid (24) (paragraph [0035]).
Correspondence
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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723