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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “the bus bar frames” in line 3. Line 1 of Claim 15 recites “a bus bar frame”. The examiner suggests amending the Claim to be consistent in either singular or plural form.
Claim 18 recites “a first metal” in line 2. The examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “the first metal” to enhance clarity, as “a first metal” was previously introduced in Claim 16, upon which Claim 18 depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 01/27/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, Urano discloses a battery pack (battery module, 100), comprising: at least one battery module (group of adjacent battery cells, 1, see annotated Figure 2 below) including at least one battery cell (1) and a module terminal (cell terminals, 1p/1n) (Figure 2, [0032-0033]). Urano further discloses a pack case (housing, 20, and cell holders, 21, at ends of battery module, 100 ) configured to cover at least a part of an outer side of the at least one battery module (group of adjacent battery cells, 1,see annotated Figure 2 below) and having a pack terminal (module terminals, 101P/101N) on at least one side (Figure 2, [0036]). Urano further discloses a safety bus bar (busbars, 2) connected between the module terminal (cell terminals, 1p/1n) and the pack terminal (module terminals, 101P/101N) to provide a power path (Figures 2 and 3, [0032, 0045]). Urano further discloses that when the temperature due to heat generation exceeds the melting point of the material of a fuse (2a) portion of the safety bus bar (busbars, 2), the power path is interrupted (Figure 3, [0070]).
Although Urano does not explicitly disclose that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) is configured to block the power path by a venting gas discharged from the at least one battery module (group of adjacent battery cells, 1, see annotated Figure 2 below), the skilled artisan would appreciate that as Urano discloses that the power path may be interrupted by melting of the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) when a temperature exceeds the melting point of the fuse (2a) material, a venting gas would indeed be able to block the power path as it is commonly known in the art that gas produced during the operation of a battery is discharged at elevated temperatures. As such, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Urano US 2021/0384592 A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Urano further discloses that a module cover (25) is disposed at an upper end of the pack case (housing, 20, and cell holders, 21, at ends of battery module, 100) such that when the battery pack (battery module, 100) is assembled, a bus bar frame (insultation cover, 24) is exposed to the environment (Figure 1, [0048]).
The skilled artisan would appreciate that at whatever location the venting gas is discharged from, it would naturally rise to a “top” of the battery pack (battery module, 100), as it would be expected to be a gas having a relatively high temperature. As such, when such venting gas rises to a top of the battery pack (battery module, 100), it would be expected that it would travel towards the “opening” between the module cover (25) and the pack case (housing, 20, and cell holders, 21, at ends of battery module, 100) which exposes the bus bar frame (insultation cover, 24), and by doing so it would pass by the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) (see Figure 1 and 2). Therefore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) is indeed disposed in a path of the venting gas. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Urano further discloses that the at least one battery module (group of adjacent battery cells, 1,see annotated Figure 2 above) is a plurality of battery modules (group of adjacent battery cells, 1,see annotated Figure 2 above) stacked in a first direction (x-direction), and wherein the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) is configured to extend in the first direction (x-direction) (Figure 2, [0032, 0044]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Urano further discloses that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) is disposed at a front side (side at which cell terminals, 1p/1n, protrude) of the plurality of battery modules (group of adjacent battery cells, 1, see annotated Figure 2 above) (Figure 2, [0045]).
The examiner notes that terms such as “front side” and “rear side” as utilized in the claims do not convey any particular structural requirements other than establishing the location of the components of the battery pack relative to one another within the battery pack. The particular orientation of the battery pack does not provide any structural limitations to the battery pack itself.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that at whatever location the venting gas is discharged from, it would naturally rise to a “top” of the battery pack (battery module, 100) in the second direction (z direction), as it would be expected to be a gas having a relatively high temperature. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Urano further discloses that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) includes two or more different types of metal (Figure 3, [0052]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Urano further discloses that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) is configured so that the two or more different types of metal are joined to each other (Figure 3, [0052]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Urano further discloses that the metals of the two or more different types of metal are copper and aluminum (Figure 3, [0052]). The skilled artisan would appreciate that each copper and aluminum possesses a melting point. As such, the skilled artisan would further appreciate that when the venting is at a temperature at or above the melting point of either copper or aluminum, the metal would be able to be melted by the venting gas. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 11, Urano further discloses a vehicle, comprising the battery pack (battery module, 100) according to Claim 1 (Figure 2, [0040]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Regarding Claim 12, Urano further discloses that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) has an inner surface (see annotated Figure 4 below) and an outer surface (see annotated Figure 4 below), the inner surface (see annotated Figure 4 below) facing the at least one battery module (group of adjacent battery cells, 1, see annotated Figure 2 above), and wherein a first groove (see annotated Figure 4 below) is formed in the inner surface (see annotated Figure 4 below) (Figures 2 and 4, [0051]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
PNG
media_image2.png
659
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Urano US 2021/0384592 A1)
Regarding Claim 13, Urano further discloses that a second groove (see annotated Figure 4 above) is formed in the inner surface (see annotated Figure 4 above). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 13 are met.
Regarding Claim 14, Urano further discloses that the first groove (see annotated Figure 4 above) has two inclined surfaces (see annotated Figure 4 above) extending from a center portion (see annotated Figure 4 above). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 14 are met.
Regarding Claim 15, Urano further discloses a bus bar frame (insulation cover, 24) between the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) and the at least one battery module (group of adjacent battery cells, 1, see annotated Figure 2 above) (Figure 2, [0042]). Urano further discloses that a plurality of slits (openings) are formed in the bus bar frame (insulation cover, 24), and wherein a first slit (opening) of the plurality of slits (openings) is above the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) and angled downwardly toward the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) (Figures 2 and 7, [0042, 0045]).
The examiner notes that terms such as “downwardly” as utilized in the claims do not convey any particular structural requirements other than establishing the location of the components of the battery pack relative to one another within the battery pack. The particular orientation of the battery pack does not provide any structural limitations to the battery pack itself. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 15 are met.
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 01/27/2025), as applied to Claim 1 above, with evidentiary support from Industrial Metal Supply Co. (Webpage).
Regarding Claim 16, Urano discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Urano further discloses that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) includes a first layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 below) of a first metal (Cu) and a second layer (aluminum portion, 2f) of a second metal (Al) (Figure 3, [0052]).
Although Urano does not explicitly disclose the melting points of the first and second metals, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as the first metal is copper and the second metal is aluminum, they would naturally possess different melting points. Specifically, Industrial Metal Supply Co. teaches that aluminum has a melting point of 659°C, while copper has a melting point of 1083°C. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that a first metal (Cu) has a higher melting point than a second metal (Al). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 16 are met.
PNG
media_image3.png
814
1011
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (Urano US 2021/0384592 A1)
Regarding Claim 18, Urano further discloses that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) includes a third layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above) of a first metal (Cu) (Figure 3, [0052]).
Looking at annotated Figure 3 above, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the second layer (aluminum portion, 2f) is between the first layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above) and the third layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above) in the x-direction. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 18 are met.
Regarding Claim 19, Urano does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the second layer (aluminum portion, 2f) is greater than a combined thickness of the first layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above) and third layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above).
However, the examiner notes that the terms “a thickness” and “a combined thickness” as written are broad limitations and are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there is necessarily a thickness of the second layer (aluminum portion, 2f) which is greater than a combined thickness of the first layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above) and third layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above). For example, the skilled artisan may select for “a thickness of the second layer (aluminum portion, 2f)”, a total thickness of the second layer (aluminum portion, 2f). Likewise, the skilled artisan may select for “a combined thickness of the first layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above) and third layer (portion of copper portion, 2e, see annotated Figure 3 above)”, a thickness equal to ½ the total thickness of the second layer (aluminum portion, 2f). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 19 are met.
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.
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.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 01/27/2025), as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Oda et al. (US 2015/0086867 A1) and with evidentiary support from Industrial Metal Supply Co. (Webpage).
In Regards to Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 7):
Urano discloses the battery pack of Claim 7 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 7, Urano further discloses that the first metal is aluminum and the second metal is copper (Figure 3, [0052]).
Although Urano does not explicitly disclose the melting points of the first and second metals, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as the first metal is aluminum and the second metal is copper, they would naturally possess different melting points. Specifically, Industrial Metal Supply Co. teaches that aluminum has a melting point of 659°C, while copper has a melting point of 1083°C. As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that a first metal layer (portion of busbars, 2, formed from aluminum) has a lower melting point than a second metal layer (portion of busbars, 2, formed from copper).
Urano is silent to the thickness of the first metal layer and the second metal layer.
Oda discloses a busbar (negative-electrode terminal, 1008) comprising a first metal layer (1080a) and a second metal layer (1081), wherein the first metal layer (1080a) consists of aluminum (Al) and the second metal layer (1081) consists of copper (Cu) (Figure 24, [0154]). Oda further discloses that the first metal layer (1080a) has a total thickness (t1) of 1.5mm, and the second metal layer (1081) has a total thickness (t2) of 1mm (Figure 24, [0155]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the thickness of the first metal layer and the second metal layer in the safety bus bar of Urano, 1.5mm and 1mm, respectively, as it is known in the art that such dimensions are suitable for a bus bar comprising an Al layer and a Cu layer, as taught by Oda. Furthermore, it has been held that mere changes in size of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular shape of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 8):
Urano as modified by Oda discloses the battery pack of Claim 8 as set forth above.
Modified Urano does not explicitly disclose that the second metal layer (portion of busbars, 2, formed from copper) is formed with a plurality of layers. However, the skilled artisan would appreciate that one could “cut” the second metal layer (portion of busbars, 2, formed from copper) in half in a thickness direction and consider the second metal layer (portion of busbars, 2, formed from copper) to have an “upper” layer and a “lower” layer, thus being formed by a plurality of layers. As such, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 01/27/2025), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeiler et al. (US 2021/0111384 A1).
In Regards to Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Urano further discloses a vehicle, comprising the battery pack (battery module, 100) according to Claim 1 (Figure 2, [0040]).
Urano is deficient in disclosing an energy storage system comprising the battery pack of Claim 1.
Zeiler teaches that it is commonly known in the art that battery packs are capable of being utilized in applications such as vehicles and energy storage systems [0003].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to utilize the battery pack of Urano in an energy storage system, as it is known in the art that battery packs may be suited to power applications such as energy storage systems and vehicles, as taught by Zeiler. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon making the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 01/27/2025) with evidentiary support from Industrial Metal Supply Co. (Webpage), as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Oda et al. (US 2015/0086867 A1).
In Regards to Claim 17 (Dependent Upon Claim 16):
Urano discloses the battery pack of Claim 16 as set forth above.
Urano is silent to the thickness of the first layer and the second layer.
Oda discloses a busbar (negative-electrode terminal, 1008) comprising a first metal layer (1080a) and a second metal layer (1081), wherein the second metal layer (1080a) consists of aluminum (Al) and the first metal layer (1081) consists of copper (Cu) (Figure 24, [0154]). Oda further discloses that the second metal layer (1080a) has a total thickness (t1) of 1.5mm, and the first metal layer (1081) has a total thickness (t2) of 1mm (Figure 24, [0155]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the thickness of the second metal layer and the first metal layer in the safety bus bar of Urano, 1.5mm and 1mm, respectively, as it is known in the art that such dimensions are suitable for a bus bar comprising an Al layer and a Cu layer, as taught by Oda. Furthermore, it has been held that mere changes in size of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular shape of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 17 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-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, 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724