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 is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 06/26/2026. Claims 1, 15, and 18 are currently amended. Claims 1-19 are pending review in this action. The previous objections regarding the Claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to the Claims. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1. New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 11-15 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) further in view of Morioka (US 2017/0346050 A1).
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]).
Urano is deficient in disclosing that the safety bus bar is configured to block the power path by a venting gas discharged from the at least one battery module, wherein the venting gas discharged from the at least one battery module is concentrated on the safety bus bar.
Morioka discloses a battery module (10) comprising a plurality of battery cells (12), wherein each of the plurality of battery cells (12) comprises a discharge valve through which gas is discharged from the plurality of battery cells (12) (Figure 4, [0027-0028]). Morioka further discloses that a safety bus bar (negative electrode bus bar, 25) is located on a side of the plurality of battery cells (12) where the discharge valve is placed (Figure 4, [0034]). Morioka further discloses that when gas is discharged from the plurality of battery cells (12), it is released through exhaust holes (62) formed in the safety bus bar (negative electrode bus bar, 25) and transferred into a vent space (28) to be released from the battery module (10) via ducts (Figure 4, [0034]). Morioka further discloses that such a configuration allows gas generated in the battery cell (12) during an event such as over-charge, short-circuiting, etc. to be released in a safe and controlled manner [0028].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the battery pack of Urano to be configured such that each battery cell has a discharge valve adjacent to the safety bus bar such that gas discharged from the battery cell may be safely discharged from the battery module, as taught by Morioka. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a battery module wherein during an event such as over-charge, short-circuiting, etc., gas may be released in a safe and controlled manner, as taught by Morioka. 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 the above modification, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as the discharge valve is adjacent to the safety bus bar, the venting gas would indeed be concentrated on the safety bus bar.
Although modified 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, thus 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 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Urano further discloses that the safety bus bar (busbars, 2) is disposed in a path of the venting gas. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above.
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 (Dependent Upon Claim 3):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 3 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Urano further discloses that the venting gas is discharged in a second direction (z direction). 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]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Regarding Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. 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 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 5 as set forth above. 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 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 5 as set forth above. 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 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano as modified by Morioka 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]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Regarding Claim 12 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. 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
587
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Urano US 2021/0384592 A1)
Regarding Claim 13 (Dependent Upon Claim 12):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 12 as set forth above. 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 (Dependent Upon Claim 12):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 12 as set forth above. 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 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. 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. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 01/27/2025) as modified by Morioka (US 2017/0346050 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, with evidentiary support from Industrial Metal Supply Co. (Webpage).
Regarding Claim 16 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano as modified by Morioka 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 (Dependent Upon Claim 16):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 16 as set forth above. 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 the 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 (Dependent Upon Claim 18):
Urano as modified by Morioka discloses the battery pack of Claim 18 as set forth above. 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.
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 modified by Morioka (US 2017/0346050 A1), 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).
Regarding Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 7):
Urano as modified by Morioka 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.
Regarding Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 8):
Urano as modified by Morioka and 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 modified by Morioka (US 2017/0346050 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeiler et al. (US 2021/0111384 A1).
Regarding Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Urano as modified by Morioka 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) as modified by Morioka (US 2017/0346050 A1) and 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).
Regarding Claim 17 (Dependent Upon Claim 16):
Urano as modified by Morioka 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1), Morioka (US 2017/0346050 A1), Oda et al. (US 2015/0086867 A1), Zeiler et al. (US 2021/0111384 A1), and with evidentiary support from Industrial Metal Supply Co. (Webpage).
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 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
Prosecution Insights