DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 3/24/26 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/24/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1 and 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the battery module" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the battery modules" as there is antecedent basis.
7. Claims 2-8 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohkuma et al. (US 2021/0194086).
Regarding claim 1, Ohkuma discloses a battery pack(Fig. 8, [0090]-[0094]), comprising: a housing (first case main body 33, Figs. 2 & 8, [0090]) comprising a bottom plate (left case bottom wall 33b & right case bottom wall 33c, Fig. 2, [0068]); battery modules configured on the bottom plate(37, Fig. 8), comprising first battery modules (modules 37 on left side of case 33 in Fig. 8) and second battery modules(modules 37 on right side of case 33 in Fig. 8), a gap being disposed between the first battery modules and the second battery modules(see space between left and right modules 37 in case 33 in Fig. 8); a control device disposed in the gap(battery control device 40, Fig. 8, [0090]); and a low-voltage connection assembly electrically connecting the battery modules and the control device(low voltage connector 50, Fig. 8, [0090]-[0092], [0013], [0015], [0026]), the low-voltage connection assembly being disposed in the gap, located between the control device and the battery modules, and located below the control device(Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Ohkuma discloses the end of the control device close to the bottom plate is provided with a first connector electrically connected to the battery modules(junction board 39, Fig. 8, [0090], [0094]).
Regarding claim 4, Ohkuma discloses the low-voltage connection assembly is provided with a second connector(interface portion 50b, Fig. 8), and the first connector is connected to the second connector by insertion([0092], [0094], Fig. 8). The instant claim includes a recitation describing the manner in which the first connector is connected to the second connector: by insertion. Said recitation appears to be product-by-process language. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 8, Ohkuma discloses a vehicle comprising the battery pack according to claim 1(Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkuma et al. (US 2021/0194086) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yano et al. (US2022/0320600).
Regarding claim 2, Ohkuma does not explicitly disclose the control device is fixed to the bottom plate through a control device bracket, the control device bracket comprises a main body portion and a base portion, the main body portion is disposed vertically with respect to the bottom plate and provided with the control device, and the base portion is bent from the lower end of the main body portion and mounted on the bottom plate.
Yano teaches a battery module in which a plurality of battery cells are connected, and an electric vehicle and a power storage device that include this battery module([0001]). Yano teaches both end parts of base plate 9 are provided with brackets 17 for fixing battery module 100 to a device to which battery module 100 is mounted such as a vehicle([0077]). Yano teaches the control device is fixed to the bottom plate through a control device bracket, the control device bracket comprises a main body portion and a base portion, the main body portion is disposed vertically with respect to the bottom plate and provided with the control device, and the base portion is bent from the lower end of the main body portion and mounted on the bottom plate (see Fig. A as annotated Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
548
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of Ohkuma with the control device is fixed to the bottom plate through a control device bracket, the control device bracket comprises a main body portion and a base portion, the main body portion is disposed vertically with respect to the bottom plate and provided with the control device, and the base portion is bent from the lower end of the main body portion and mounted on the bottom plate as taught by Yano in order to securely hold the device in place.
14. Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkuma et al. (US 2021/0194086) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN209104241U) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 5, Ohkuma does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a high-voltage connection assembly comprising a high-voltage wiring harness and a high-voltage wiring harness bracket disposed above the high-voltage wiring harness, the low-voltage connection assembly being located above the high-voltage wiring harness bracket.
Liu teaches wiring harness support of power battery pack, power battery pack and vehicle (title). Liu teaches a high-voltage connection assembly comprising a high-voltage wiring harness and a high-voltage wiring harness bracket disposed above the high-voltage wiring harness, the low-voltage connection assembly being located above the high-voltage wiring harness bracket([0059], see Fig. B as annotated Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
581
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B.
Liu teaches in this way there is no need to set separate limiting structures for the low voltage wiring harness and the high voltage wiring harness within the power battery pack 1000 ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify he battery pack of Ohkuma with further comprising: a high-voltage connection assembly comprising a high-voltage wiring harness and a high-voltage wiring harness bracket disposed above the high-voltage wiring harness, the low-voltage connection assembly being located above the high-voltage wiring harness bracket as taught by Liu in order to secure and organize the wires.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ohkuma discloses the low-voltage connection assembly comprises a low-voltage wiring harness and a low-voltage wiring harness bracket, the low-voltage wiring harness being fixed to the high-voltage wiring harness bracket by means of the low-voltage wiring harness bracket(Liu, [0059], Fig. B).
15. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkuma et al. (US 2021/0194086), and further in view of Liu et al. (CN209104241U) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wang (US2023/0112646).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ohkuma does not explicitly disclose the high-voltage wiring harness comprises a cladding layer and conductive members disposed within the cladding layer, the cladding layer being fixed to the high-voltage wiring harness bracket.
Wang teaches conductive metal connectors, and particularly to a copper-aluminum composite electric energy transmission system and a processing method therefor([0002]). Wang teaches the copper-aluminum composite electric energy transmission system, which includes an aluminum cable with a shielding layer, is mainly applied to a high-voltage wiring harness of an electric vehicle([0063]). Wang teaches it is possible to decrease the weight of the wiring harness in the electric vehicle, reducing the energy consumption, while lowering the cost of the high-voltage wiring harness([0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of modified Ohkuma with the high-voltage wiring harness comprises a cladding layer and conductive members disposed within the cladding layer, the cladding layer being fixed to the high-voltage wiring harness bracket as taught by Wang in order to decrease the weight of the wiring harness.
Double Patenting
16. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
17. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,905.
Regarding claim 1, although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 12,315,905 teach the limitations recited in claim 1 of the instant application. The major difference between the instant claim and those of U.S. Patent 12,315,905, is that the claims of U.S. Patent 12,315,905 are drawn to a bottom plate provided with an accommodating portion, whereas the instant claim is drawn to a bottom plate. It is noted that a bottom plate would necessarily have an accommodating portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights