Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/194,976

ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR TO CONNECT THE TERMINALS OF TWO ADJACENT BATTERY MODULES TO ONE ANOTHER IN A POWER STORAGE SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 03, 2023
Examiner
DARBY, BRENDON CHARLES
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ferrari S.P.A.
OA Round
2 (Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
61 granted / 120 resolved
-14.2% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
166
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.9%
+13.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 120 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 01/13/2026. Claims 1-15 are currently pending for examination on the merits. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (WO 2021/225199 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Ichikawa et al. (US 2018/0309281) (Ichikawa) (of record) and Buechling et al. (US 2022/0231436) (Buechling) (of record). Regarding claim 1, Song discloses an electrical connector (title; abstract; [0029]) to connect terminals (4) of two adjacent battery modules (2) to one another in a power storage system (1) (see Fig. 1; [0028]-[0029]); the electrical connector comprises: a conductor bar (6), which is provided with two first through holes and is configured to be laid on the two terminals (4) of the two battery modules (2) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0029]; [0031]); and two screws (7), each arranged through a first through of the conducting bar (6) and configured to be screwed into a threaded hole of a corresponding terminal (4) (see Figs. 2 and 4; [0051]). Song fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the electrical conductor comprises a retaining sheet, which is laid on the conductor bar (6) on the opposite side relative to the terminals (4) of the two battery modules (2) and has two second through holes, each aligned with a corresponding first through hole. However, it is known in the art to configure conductor bars with multiple layers, including a top layer that suggests the claimed retaining sheet. For instance, Ichikawa teaches a similar electrical connector (title; abstract) to connect terminals (21A-21D) of two adjacent battery modules (2A-2D) to one another in a power storage system (1) (see Fig. 1; [0016]-[0018]); the electrical connector comprising: a conductor bar (3, 4), which is provided with two first through holes (51a) and is configured to be laid on the two terminals (21A-21D) of the two battery modules (2A-2D) (see Figs. 1-2; [0022]-[0024]), wherein the conducting bar (3, 4) comprises a plurality of laminated sheets (5), including a top sheet (5) (corresponding to the claimed retaining sheet), which is laid on the conductor bar (3, 4) on the opposite side relative to the terminals (21A-21D) of the two battery modules (2A-2D) and has two second through holes (51a), each aligned with a corresponding first through hole (51a) (see Fig. 3; [0022]-[0024]). Ichikawa further teaches that configuring the conductor bar (3, 4) to have these laminated sheets (5) helps the conductor bar (3, 4) to have the correct current-carrying capacity in consideration of a maximum current value flowing through the conductor bar (3, 4) ([0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductor bar disclosed by Song such that it has a plurality of laminated sheets (including a top retaining sheet), as taught by Ichikawa, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow for the conductor bar to have the correct current-carrying capacity relative to a maximum current value flowing through the conductor bar. Furthermore, given that the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5) is merely the top layer of the laminated conductor bar (Ichikawa: 3, 4) and that the second through holes (Ichikawa: 51a) are aligned with the first through holes (Ichikawa: 51a), it would have been obvious for each screw (Song: 7) in modified Song to be screwed into a corresponding second through hole (Ichikawa: 51a) as well as the first through hole. As mentioned by applicant on pages 6 and 10 of the Remarks filed 01/13/2026, it is clear that modified Song discloses that there is some clearance between each screw (Song: 7) and the respective first through hole (Song: see Fig. 4). However, modified Song fails to explicitly mention this feature in the description of Figure 4. Nonetheless, this configuration is still known in the art. For instance, Buechling teaches a similar electrical connector (1) to connect adjacent battery modules (title; abstract; [0010]), the electrical connector comprising: a conductor bar (12), which is provided with two through holes (63, 64) and two screws (4) which are arranged through the through holes (63, 64) (see Figs. 1-2; [0012]; [0032]). Buechling further teaches that the through holes (63, 64) have an oblong shape such that each screw (4) is screwed into a corresponding through hole (63, 64) with a clearance (see Fig. 1; [0032]). Buechling further teaches that configuring the conductor bar (12) in this way makes it possible to compensate for different distances between battery modules in a simple manner ([0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the through holes disclosed by modified Song such that each screw is screwed into a corresponding first through hole with a clearance, as taught by Buechling, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would make it possible to compensate for different distances between battery modules in a simple manner. Thus, modified Song satisfies all of the limitations in claim 1. Regarding claim 2, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Song further discloses that the electrical connector comprises a shell (Song: 12), which is made of an electrically insulating material and is open at the top and at the bottom and contains, on the inside, the conductor bar (Song: 6) (Song: see Figs. 2 and 4; [0031]-[0032]; [0036]; [0014]). Furthermore, since modified Song includes the teachings from Ichikawa regarding the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the shell (Song: 12) to also contain the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5). Thus, modified Song satisfies all of the limitations in claim 2. Regarding claim 3, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Song further discloses that the electrical connector comprises a lid (Song: 13), which is made of an electrically insulating material and is coupled to the shell (Song: 12) so as to close the shell (Song: 12) at the top (Song: see Figs. 2-3; [0031]-[0032]; [0037]; [0014]). Regarding claim 4, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Song further discloses that the conductor bar (Song: 6) is fastened to the terminals (Song: 4) via the screws (Song: 7) inside the shell (Song: 12) (Song: see Figs. 2 and 4; [0036]; [0051]). Furthermore, Buechling teaches that displacement of the screws (Buechling: 4) relative to the conductor bar (Buechling: 12) (and vice versa) is possible until the screws (Buechling: 4) are completely fastened to the respective battery module (Buechling: [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the electrical connector in modified Song such that the conductor bar (Song: 6) is completely locked in the shell (Song: 12) via the screws (Song: 7), as taught by Buechling, and, hence, unable to make any movement relative to the shell (Song: 12) because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to completely fasten the conductor bar (Song: 6) to the battery modules (Song: 2). Regarding claim 5, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. As set forth above, Ichikawa teaches that the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5) is the top layer of the laminated conductor bar (Ichikawa: 3, 4) (Ichikawa: see Fig. 3; [0022]-[0024]). Furthermore, since modified Song discloses that the entire conductor bar (Song: 6) is contained in the shell (Song: 12) (Song: see Figs. 2 and 4; [0036]; [0051]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5) to also be contained within the shell (Song: 12). Finally, since modified Song includes the teachings from Buechling that displacement of the screws (Buechling: 4) and/or the conductor bar (Buechling: 12) in a plane perpendicular to the to a longitudinal axis of the screws (Buechling: 4) is possible due to the oblong shaped holes (Buechling: 63, 64) in the conductor bar (Buechling: 12) (Buechling: see Fig. 2; [0032]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Song to have satisfied the claimed limitation that the retaining sheet is able to make transverse movements. Regarding claim 6, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Song further discloses that the conductor bar (Song: 6) is fastened to the terminals (Song: 4) via the screws (Song: 7) inside the shell (Song: 12) (Song: see Figs. 2 and 4; [0036]; [0051]). Furthermore, Buechling teaches that displacement of the screws (Buechling: 4) relative to the conductor bar (Buechling: 12) (and vice versa) is possible until the screws (Buechling: 4) are completely fastened to the respective battery module (Buechling: [0032]). Therefore, given that the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5) is merely the top layer of the conductor bar (Ichikawa: 3, 4) (Ichikawa: see Fig. 3; [0022]-[0024]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the electrical connector in modified Song such that the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5) is inserted inside the shell (Song: 12) so that it cannot be extracted from the shell (Song: 12) once it is coupled to the screws (Song: 7) when the screws (Song: 7) are completely fastened to the battery modules (Song: 2). Regarding claim 11, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Modified Song further discloses that the shell (Song: 12) comprises at least one protuberance (Song: 32), which has an asymmetric position or conformation relative to the shell (Song: 12) and is configured to engage an opening (Song: 4a) of the power storage system (Song: 1) only when the shell (Song: 12) has one single predetermined orientation (Song: see Figs. 3-5; [0046]-[0050]). Regarding claim 12, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Ichikawa teaches that the conductor bar (Ichikawa: 3, 4) consists of a plurality of sheets (Ichikawa: 5) identical to one another and overlapping one another (Ichikawa: see Fig. 3; [0022]-[0024]). Therefore, since modified Song includes the teachings from Ichikawa regarding the plurality of sheets (Ichikawa: 5) of the conductor bar (Ichikawa: 3, 4), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Song to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 12. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (WO 2021/225199 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Ichikawa et al. (US 2018/0309281) (Ichikawa) (of record) and Buechling et al. (US 2022/0231436) (Buechling) (of record) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yamanaka (US 2020/0067211) (of record). Regarding claims 7-10, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 6. Modified Song fails to disclose, however, the claimed through slits as set forth in claims 7-10. Yamanaka teaches a similar electrical connector (title; abstract) to connect terminals (7, 13) of two adjacent battery modules (5A, 10A) to one another in a power storage system (1) (see Figs. 1-3; [0055]-[0056]), the electrical connector comprising a conductor bar (33), a retaining sheet (22+23) arranged on top of the conductor bar (33), and a shell (31) made of an insulating material and containing the conductor bar (33) and the retaining sheet (22+23) (see Figs. 2-4; [0058]-[0062]; [0074]). Yamanaka further teaches that the shell (31) laterally has two through slits (45, 46) opposite one another through which the retaining sheet (22+23) can be inserted into the shell (31) (see Figs. 4-9; [0065]).Yamanaka further teaches that the retaining sheet (22+23) is longer than an inner space of the shell (31) so that the retaining sheet (22+23) can be arranged inside the shell (31) only be engaging, on both sides, the corresponding slits (45, 46) (see Figs. 4-9; [0065]), wherein, at two ends, the retaining sheet (22+23) has two appendages with a smaller width compared to a central part of the retaining sheet (22+23) (see Modified Figure 4 below), and wherein one of the through slits (45, 46) is misaligned relative to first through holes (55, 56) so that the retaining sheet (22+23), once it is inserted through the through slit (45, 46), has to be translated perpendicularly to the through slit (45, 46) in order to align second through holes (73, 83) in the retaining sheet (22+23) with the corresponding first through holes (55, 56) (see Figs. 7-8; [0091]-[0093]). Yamanaka further teaches that configuring the electrical connector in this way helps to suppress an operator from touching metal portions of fastenings during the insertion and removal of the retaining sheet (22+23) ([0124]-[0128]; [0010]). PNG media_image1.png 484 872 media_image1.png Greyscale Modified Figure 4, Yamanaka Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shell and the retaining sheet disclosed by modified Song such that they meet the claimed limitations in claims 7-10, as taught by Yamanaka, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to suppress an operator from touching metal portions of fastenings during the insertion and removal of the retaining sheet. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (WO 2021/225199 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Ichikawa et al. (US 2018/0309281) (Ichikawa) (of record) and Buechling et al. (US 2022/0231436) (Buechling) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhong (CN 208719102 U with English Machine Translation) (of record). Regarding claims 13-15, modified Song discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Song fails to disclose, however, that the screws (Song: 7) meet the claimed limitations in claims 13-15. Zhong teaches a screw for use in a high power lithium battery (title; abstract). Zhong further teaches that the screw consists of a head (2) and of a cylindrical body (1), which projects from the head (2) and has an intermediate portion (5) without thread and arranged in contact with the head (2) and a threaded end portion (6) arranged on a side opposite the head (2) (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0036]), wherein the intermediate portion (5) without thread has a smaller diameter than a diameter of the threaded end portion (6) (see Figs. 1 and 2), and wherein the intermediate portion (5) without thread has a length that is about the same as the length of the threaded end portion (6) (see Figs. 1 and 2), suggesting the claimed range of a length that is at least the same as the length of the threaded end portion (6). Zhong further teaches that configuring the screw in this way improves the firmness of the connection between the screw and a power connector and improves the overall service life of the screw ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screws disclosed by modified Song to meet all of the claimed limitations in claims 13-15, as taught by Zhong, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the firmness of the connection between the screws and a power connector and would improve the overall service life of the screw. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/18/2025. Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Song, Ichikawa, and Buechling used in the rejection of claim 1 fails to meet all of the claimed limitations, specifically the “mixed” situation in which the same screw is screwed into the corresponding second through hole of the retaining sheet and is arranged with a clearance through the corresponding first through hole of the conductor bar. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, examiner notes that applicant’s alleged “mixed” scenario in claim 1 is one in which each screw is not screwed into the first through hole of the conductor bar because there is a clearance, but each screw is screwed into the second through hole of the retaining sheet because there is a lack of clearance between the screw and the retaining sheet. However, examiner notes that the limitations “arranged through the corresponding first through hole with a clearance” and “screwed into the corresponding second through hole” are not mutually exclusive and do not necessarily require a “mixed” situation because it is possible to screw a screw through a hole that has a clearance in one direction and no clearance in another direction. Indeed, this is explicitly shown in the instant application. The instant application states, “each through hole 11 of the retaining sheet 10 has a longitudinal size that is greater than the outer diameter of the thread of each screw 9 and a transverse size that is (slightly) smaller than the outer diameter of the thread of each screw 9 (hence, the screw 9 has to be screwed into the through hole 11 in order to be inserted into the through hole 11)” (see [0026] of the PGPub of the instant application; see also Modified Figure 5 below). Thus, it is possible for the claimed screw to be screwed into the second through hole of the retaining sheet while simultaneously having a clearance with the retaining sheet. Similarly, even though claim 1 requires that “each screw is arranged through the corresponding first through hole with a clearance,” this does not mean that the screw cannot also be screwed into the first through hole. Indeed, the term “arranged through” is a broad term that encompasses screwing. With this in mind, it is clear that the combination of Song, Ichikawa, and Buechling satisfies the claimed limitations. As set forth above, Song discloses two screws (Song: 7) arranged through holes of a conductor bar (Song: 6) (Song: see Figs. 2 and 4; [0051]). Ichikawa teaches a conductor bar (Ichikawa: 3, 4) which comprises a plurality of laminated sheets (Ichikawa: 5), wherein the top sheet (Ichikawa: 5) corresponds to the claimed retaining sheet. Thus, the combination of Song and Ichikawa suggests arranging the screws (Song: 7) through corresponding holes in the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5) and the rest of the conductor bar (Ichikawa: 5). Finally, Buechling teaches a conductor bar (Buechling: 12) which is provided with two through holes (Buechling: 63, 64) having an oblong shape such that each screw (Buechling: 4) has a clearance in a direction of displacement (Buechling: 18) while necessarily not having a clearance in a direction perpendicular to the direction of displacement (Buechling: 18) (Buechling: see Figs. 1-2; [0032]). Therefore, the combination of Song, Ichikawa, and Buechling teaches that each screw (Song: 7) is arranged through the first through hole of the conductor bar (Ichikawa: 5) and the second through hole of the retaining sheet (Ichikawa: 5) with a clearance (in the direction of displacement 18 taught by Buechling) while also being screwed into the first and second through holes (there being no clearance in the direction opposite the direction of displacement 18). Therefore, applicant’s arguments against the cited references are not persuasive, and the rejection in view of Song, Ichikawa, and Buechling still stands. PNG media_image2.png 472 662 media_image2.png Greyscale Modified Figure 5, Instant Application As such, claims 1-15 stand rejected. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm. 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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. /B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749 /KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 13, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600173
A NOISE IMPROVING TREAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583265
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570108
MOTORCYCLE TIRE FOR RUNNING ON ROUGH TERRAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12508846
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12485705
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+16.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 120 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month