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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the alleged species do not "recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species" as is alleged. In fact, examples of the features in these claims are found in the exemplary embodiment described in the specification. This is found persuasive and therefore the species restriction is withdrawn. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/403,445 is not granted for any of the claims because of the lack of support for “A electrical connection system for a traction battery pack, comprising: a first electrical contact; a second electrical contact; and at least one rivet that connects the first electrical contact directly to the second electrical contact”.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/14/23 was filed on 3/14/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 3/14/23 are accepted by the examiner.
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)(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 1-3, 7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2021/0226304).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 13, Suzuki discloses a battery module “100” (electrical connection system) comprising: a first bus bar “20P” (first electrical contact); a second bus bar “20N” (second electrical contact); and at least one rivet “M” that connects the first bus bar directly to the second bus bar; wherein the first bus bar is electrically connected to a first battery terminal “2P” of a first battery “1”, and the second bus bar is electrically connected to a second battery terminal “2N” of a second battery “1”; wherein the first battery is within a first battery group “10” (first cell stack) and the second battery is within a different, second battery group “10” (second cell stack); wherein the rivet includes a shaft extending between a factory head and a deformed head; wherein a shaft of the at least one rivet is received within both a through-hole “24a” (first aperture) of the first bus bar and within a through-hole “24a” (second aperture) of the second bus bar; wherein the first bus bar and the second bus bar are within a module cover (not illustrated) (enclosure) of the battery module ([0025],[0045],[0048],[0071] and Figs. 1, 5-7, and 8C). Examiner’s note: the limitation “for a traction battery pack” recited in the preamble of claim 1 is construed as being intended use. Therefore, the electrical connection system taught by Suzuki is inherently capable of being used in a traction battery pack.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al (JP 5159112 B2, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Okada et al discloses a battery pack “100” (electrical connection system) comprising: a first electrode terminal “12” (first electrical contact); a second electrode terminal “12” (second electrical contact); and at least one rivet “51” that connects the first electrode terminal directly to the second electrode terminal; wherein a shaft of the at least one rivet is received within both a connecting hole “13” (first aperture) of the first electrode terminal and within a connecting hole “13” (second aperture) of the second electrode terminal ([0040] and Fig. 7). Examiner’s note: the limitation “for a traction battery pack” recited in the preamble of claim 1 is construed as being intended use. Therefore, the electrical connection system taught by Okada et al is inherently capable of being used in a traction battery pack.
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.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2021/0226304) in view of Kern et al (US 5783987). The Suzuki reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Suzuki does not expressly teach at least one rivet that is configured to rupture in response to a thermal energy level exceeding a threshold (claim 4); at least one rivet that includes a hollow shaft extending between a factory head and a deformed head (claim 5); further comprising a pyrotechnic held within the hollow shaft (claim 6); a rivet that includes a chamber holding a pyrotechnic (claim 8); a pyrotechnic rivet (claim 11).
Kern et al teaches the concept of utilizing a pyrotechnic separating device (pyrotechnic rivet) to connect a first bus “4a” (first electrical contact) and a second bus “4b” (second electrical contact); wherein the pyrotechnic separating device comprises a hollow shaft “12” and a pyrotechnic “2” held within the hollow shaft, wherein the pyrotechnic separating device includes a chamber holding a pyrotechnic; wherein the pyrotechnic separating device is inherently capable of rupturing in response to a thermal energy level exceeding a threshold (col. 3, lines 41-65 and Figs. 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Suzuki battery module to include at least one rivet that is configured to rupture in response to a thermal energy level exceeding a threshold; at least one rivet that includes a hollow shaft extending between a factory head and a deformed head, further comprising a pyrotechnic held within the hollow shaft; a rivet that includes a chamber holding a pyrotechnic; or a pyrotechnic rivet in order to utilize the mechanical joint portion as a high-current fuse element exhibiting universal applicability with a simple design and achieving ultra-short breaking times, thereby ensuring safety of the battery module (col. 1, lines 40-43).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2021/0226304) in view of Wynn et al (US 2020/0067056). The Suzuki reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Suzuki does not expressly teach a rivet that is aluminum (claim 10).
Wynn et al discloses a fastening mechanism such as bolts, screws, … , rivets that may be made of any suitably strong material as aluminum alloy ([0026]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Wynn indicates that aluminum is a suitable material for use as a rivet. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use aluminum.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2021/0226304) in view of Winkler et al (US 2020/0203945). The Suzuki reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Suzuki does not expressly teach a pyrotechnic rivet (claim 11).
Winkler et al discloses a pyrotechnic switch (pyrotechnic rivet) that activated by igniting an explosive charge (pyrotechnic) from the pyrotechnic switch, wherein after activation, the pyrotechnic switch exhibits a stable and irreversible switching state which refers in particular to the fact that after the protection element has been activated, the functionality of the fuse element for switching is irreversibly destroyed so that it is impossible for the protection element, in particular the pyrotechnic switch, to re-close the circuit (of the energy storage device), wherein the pyrotechnic switch or protection element is preferably configured as an isolating switch, which enables complete galvanic isolation of the circuit ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Suzuki battery module to utilize the mechanical joint portion as a pyrotechnic rivet in order to provide a cost-effective and/or faster and/or more efficient protection for overcurrent protection for battery systems ([0005]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2021/0226304) in view of Hong et al (US 2019/0341595). The Suzuki reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Suzuki does not expressly teach a spring sandwiched between the first electrical contact and the second electrical contact, the spring biasing the first electrical contact away from the second electrical contact (claim 12).
Hong et al discloses an elastic member “320” having a spring inserted between two plate that is compressed in the opposite direction to a first busbar “200a” and a second busbar “200b” ([0081] and Figs. 2 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Suzuki battery module to include a spring sandwiched between the first bus bar and the second bus bar, the spring biasing the first bus bar away from the second bus bar in order to establish an electrical connection between a first bus bar and a second bus bar through an expansion force cause by volume increase of the first battery cell, causing a short, thereby preventing overcharge of the battery module and improving the stability of the battery module ([0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/17/2026