DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 21-27 are currently pending. Claims 4 and 14-20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-27 have been added. The amended claim 1 does overcome the previously stated 102 and 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 21-27 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections. This action is made FINAL as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 26 is a duplicate of claim 22 because they both depend from claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, 21, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2021/0226304) in view of Miyoshi (US 3700970).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, 21, 23, 25, and 27, 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.
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 (claims 1, 21, 25); at least one rivet that includes a hollow shaft extending between a factory head and a deformed head (claims 5, 21, 25); further comprising a pyrotechnic held within the hollow shaft (claims 6, 21, 25); a rivet that includes a chamber holding a pyrotechnic (claim 8); a pyrotechnic rivet (claims 11, 21, 25).
Miyoshi teaches the concept of utilizing a current circuit breaker (pyrotechnic rivet) to connect a terminal conductor “3a” (first electrical contact) and a terminal conductor “3b” (second electrical contact); wherein the current circuit breaker comprises an electrode “11” (hollow shaft) and an explosive powder “13b” (pyrotechnic) held within the electrode, wherein the current circuit breaker includes a cavity “11d” (chamber / hollow shaft) holding the explosive powder (pyrotechnic); wherein a small-diameter part “11c” is blasted away from the electrode, when a short-circuiting current flows through the circuit breaker, to break the current flow and electrically decouple the terminal conductor “3a” from the terminal conductor “3b”, wherein the ignition of the explosive powder necessarily requires a thermal energy level exceeding a threshold (col. 3, lines 59-60, col. 5, lines 7-61, col. 6, lines 22-35, and Figs. 1, 2(A), and 2(B)).
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 rivet as a current circuit breaker configured to rupture in response to a thermal energy level exceeding a threshold; wherein the 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 rupture the electrical connection between the first busbar and the second busbar as rapidly as possible from the instant of explosion, thereby cutting off the current by the opening of only the circuit-opening mechanism (col. 13, lines 23-30).
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Miyoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wynn et al (US 2020/0067056).
However, Suzuki as modified by Miyoshi 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.
Claims 12, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Miyoshi as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Hong et al (US 2019/0341595).
However, Suzuki as modified by Miyoshi 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/Miyoshi 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]).
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, 21, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2021/0226304) in view of Winkler et al (US 2020/0203945).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, 21, 23, 25, and 27, 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.
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 (claims 1, 21, 25); at least one rivet that includes a hollow shaft extending between a factory head and a deformed head (claims 5, 21, 25); a pyrotechnic held within the hollow shaft (claims 6, 21, 25); a rivet that includes a chamber holding a pyrotechnic (claim 8); a pyrotechnic rivet (claims 11, 21, 25).
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 at least one rivet to rupture in response to a thermal energy level exceeding a threshold, the rupture electrically decoupling the first busbar from the second busbar; wherein the at least one rivet includes a hollow shaft extending between a factory head and a deformed head and a pyrotechnic held within the hollow shaft; a rivet that includes a chamber holding a pyrotechnic; or 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 21-27 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.
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 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 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights