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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, drawn to a method of manufacturing the battery module, and Group III, drawn to a battery pack there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/30/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-10, a battery module in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris(US 10243183 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Harris discloses a battery module comprising (See Figs. 3-17):
a plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 4, 402a/b or 402, C8/L15-25);
a cell frame (302 and 304, see Fig. 5-7 and 8A-8H, C9/L25-C11/L50) configured to receive the plurality of battery cell (see Fig. 4, 402a/b or 402, C8/L15-25);
a busbar (See Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, 306, 307, 308, C6/L65-C7/41) configured to connect the plurality of battery cells (see Fig. 4) to each other in at least one of in series and in parallel (C6/L65-C7/41); and
a bonding wire (C7/L30-35) configured to electrically connect the plurality of battery cells to the busbar (See Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, 306, 307, 308, C6/L65-C7/41),
wherein
the busbar (See Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, 306, 307, 308, C6/L65-C7/41) comprises a first busbar (See Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, 306, C6/L65-C7/41) and a plurality of second busbars (See Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, 307 and 308, C6/L65-C7/41), wherein the first busbar (see Fig. 4, 306) is located at an upper part of the cell frame and the plurality of second busbars are symmetrically (See Fig. 4, 307 and 308) disposed on opposing side surfaces portions of the cell frame (See Fig. 4).
With regards to the claim limitation “integrally formed” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the cell frame and the busbar are configured to be integrally formed, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
With regards to the limitation “integrally formed by insert injection molding” the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 2, modified Harris discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Harris discloses wherein each of the plurality of battery cells is a cylindrical battery cell (C12/L1-7).
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris(US 10243183 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above and in further view of Takasaki (JP 2011204584 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, Harris discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Harris does disclose that the plurality of second busbars (See Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, 307 and 308, C6/L65-C7/41) comprises a first surface (See Fig. 14A and 14B, surface with multiple indentations), a second surface (See Fig. 14A and 14B, surface without multiple indentations) wherein the first surface is located in the same plane as coplanar with the first busbar (See Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, 306, C6/L65-C7/41), and wherein the second surface is transverse to the first surface connected to the first surface in a bent shape (See Fig. 14A and 14B), the second surface being located at a first side surface of the cell frame (See Fig. 4).
However, Harris does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of second busbars comprise a third surface wherein the third surface is transverse to the first surface and connected transverse to the second surface in a bent shape, the third surface being located at a front surface of the cell frame.
Takasaki (See Figs. 1, 2, and Fig. 5) discloses first (see Fig. 2, 20) and second bus bars (see Fig. 2, 60a and 70a) for a cylindrical battery module and further discloses that a third surface (surface which has 82a/81a) is present wherein the third surface is transverse to the first surface (top surface same as where 20 is located) and connected transverse to the second surface (side surface) in a bent shape, the third surface being located at a front surface (surface which has 82a/81a) of the cell frame (See Fig. 6) because of the positioning of the terminal connection ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to modify the positioning of the external terminals and the second bus bars of Harris to have the shape as disclosed by Takasaki because Takasaki discloses that having the external terminal in this position and the second bus bars to have this shape allow for the battery module to be easily incorporated into an electrical device.
Regarding claim 4, modified Harris discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Harris discloses wherein the first busbar and the second surface of each of the plurality of second busbars is provided with a first through-hole and a second through-hole, respectively (see Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, C14/L44-C15/L5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Harris discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Harris discloses wherein the first through-hole comprises a first plurality of holes extending along a longitudinal direction of the first busbar (306) so as to be spaced apart from each other by a first predetermined distance (see Figs. 13A, 13B, 14A, and 14B, C14/L44-C15/L5),
Harris discloses that there is a second through hole on the second surface (See Fig. 14A and 14B, surface without multiple indentations) but does not disclose a second plurality of holes along a longitudinal direction of the second surface of each of the plurality of second bus bars (307 and 308)
Harris discloses that the interconnect plates 306, 307 and 308 may comprise a plurality of holes 322, 324, and 325, corresponding to the plurality of heat stakes and locating buttons in the retainer plate, in order to align and connect to the retainer plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the second surface of the plurality of second bus bars by further including additional through holes as shown on the first surface because doing so will aid is further alignment and improve connection.
In addition, modified Harris discloses wherein the first through-hole and the second through-hole are configured to be filled with a resin component that forms of the cell frame (heat stakes and locating buttons C14/L44-C15/L60).
Regarding claim 6, modified Harris discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Harris discloses wherein a first pin insertion hole (322, 324, 326, heat stake holes) is disposed in the first busbar (306) and a second pin insertion hole (322, 324, 326, heat stake holes) is disposed in the first surface of each of the plurality of second busbars (307 and 308), such that the first busbar and the plurality of second busbars are each configured to be fixed ( heat stakes C14/L44-C15/L60).
With regards to the limitation “during the insert injection molding” the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 7, modified Harris discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Harris discloses wherein the cell frame (302 and 304, see Fig. 5-7 and 8A-8H, C9/L25-C11/L50) comprises a plurality of fixing portions (304 includes 806, C10/L48-60 and 806 includes 822/824/825/826, see Figs. 12A and 12B, C14/L20-42) configured to fix the first busbar and each of the plurality of second busbars (C11/L1-24 and C14/L20-42), wherein each of the plurality of fixing portions has a first shape-configured to covering a first predetermined area of an upper surface of the first busbar in a width direction of the first busbar and a second shape covering a second predetermined area of the first surface of each of the plurality of second busbars in a width direction of the first surface of the second busbars (C14/L44-C15/L16).
Regarding claim 8, modified Harris discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Harris discloses wherein each of the plurality of fixing portions has a pin holes (826 formed at a corresponding position to 822), wherein each of the pin holes (826 formed at a corresponding position to 822) is disposed at a position corresponding to the first pin insertion hole (322, 324, 326, heat stake holes) and the second pin insertion hole (322, 324, 326, heat stake holes) (C15/L60-C16/L45).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris(US 10243183 B1) in view of Takasaki (JP 2011204584 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 3-8 above and in view of Wang (CN 107958985 B, Machine Translation) and in further view of Schuurman (US 6215681 B1).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, modified Harris discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Harris discloses that the battery can be connected to an external device (See Fig. 2A and C5/L55-C6/L10) and furthermore as noted in the above rejection of claim 1 through modification of Takasaki terminals are in contact with the third surface.
However, no details are shown about the terminal connection.
Wang discloses a terminal connection (See Fig. 3) for a battery module which comprises a flange nut (8) which is a power connection portion connected to a bolt structure (10) (see pg. 5, detailed description section).
Schuurman discloses a self-clinching bolt structures provides protruding access from other electrical conduction points (C7/L50-55).
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art at the time filing to modify the electrical terminal connection to have a bolt structure which is fastened to a flanged nut as disclosed by Wang because Wang discloses that this will allow for a battery terminal structure to be connected to an external device.
Furthermore it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art at the time filing to modify the bolt structure of modified Harris to be a self-clinching bolt structure as disclosed by Schuurman because these two elements will both provide protruding access from other electrical conduction points and using a self-clinching bolt structure would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights