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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. While applicant does not explicitly mention that the election of Group I is made without traverse, because applicant does not provide any arguments against the restriction between Groups I and II, examiner assumes that the election of Group I is made without traverse.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/31/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. In light of the prior art made of record that reads on both Species A and Species B, examiner notes that applicant’s arguments are persuasive, and the Election of Species between Species A and Species B is withdrawn. Accordingly, Species A has been reinstated, and claim 6 as being drawn to Species A is considered for examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "92" and "96", as seen in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-4 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first and second tab terminals connected to each other and extending through the aperture” in lines 1-2. However, it is unclear if this limitation is intending to require that both the first and second tab terminals extend through the same aperture or if only one of the first or second tab terminal extends through the single aperture. When read in light of the specification, it is assumed that only one of the first or second tab terminals is required to extend through the aperture. For instance, Figures 5A and 5B of the instant application show a cross-member (66) with a plurality of apertures (70). However, Figure 5B shows that only one tab terminal (58) extends through each of the apertures (70), not multiple tab terminals (58). Indeed, the specification also notes that “tab terminals 58 each extend through a respective aperture 70” (see [0046] of the PGPub of the instant application; emphasis added). Thus, in order to avoid any 112(a) issues and to be consistent with the instant specification, “the first and second tab terminals connected to each other and extending through the aperture” in lines 1-2 will be read as “the first and second tab terminals connected to each other, and either the first or second tab terminal extending through the aperture.”
Claim 4 is also rejected due to its dependence upon rejected claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required in order to overcome the indefiniteness rejections. Suggested corrections are bolded and underlined for emphasis only.
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)(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.
Claims 1-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanda (JP 2011249428 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kanda discloses a battery pack system (title; abstract), comprising: a first tab terminal (25); a second tab terminal (35) (see Fig. 1; [0030]); and at least one point (62) spaced a distance from the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals (see Figs. 1 and 6; [0033]-[0035]). Examiner notes that the limitation requiring “the at least one point configured to pierce at least the first tab terminal when the first tab terminal and the at least one point are shifted relative to each other such that the at least one point contacts the first tab terminal” is merely intended use language that fails to require structure not already present in Kanda. Examiner emphasizes that "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original), and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114 (II). Thus, since Kanda discloses a first tab terminal (25), a second tab terminal (35), and at least one point (62) spaced a distance from the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals, it is clear that Kanda reads on all of the structural limitations of the claim. What’s more, Kanda discloses that the point (62) is able to split open the container (46) of the storage cell (11), which is made of an aluminum laminate film ([0028]; [0036]). Therefore, since the first tab terminal (25) is also made of aluminum ([0026]), it is clear that the at least one point (62) would be capable of piercing at least the first tab terminal (25) when the first tab terminal (25) and the at least one point (62) are shifted relative to each other in response to some external force such that the at least one point (62) contacts the first tab terminal (25). Thus, it is clear that Kanda reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses a cross-member (12) that includes the at least one point (62) (see Figs. 1 and 4; [0033]; [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Kanda further discloses that the cross-member (12) includes an aperture (see Modified Figure 1 below), the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals connected to each other and extending through the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 below; [0030]; [0035]), and the at least one point (62) disposed about a perimeter of the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Kanda
Regarding claim 4, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 3. Kanda further discloses that the at least one point (62) can be located both on an inboard side and an outboard side of the aperture (see Modified Figure 1 above; see also Fig. 12), and Kanda also discloses that this battery pack system can have application in electric vehicles ([0002]). Therefore, while the limitation “with reference to an orientation of the aperture when installed within a vehicle” is merely intended use language that does not require further structure to the battery pack system itself, it is clear that the battery pack system disclosed by Kanda would satisfy this functional limitation no matter what orientation it has when it is installed within a vehicle. Thus, Kanda reads on all of the limitations in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Kanda further discloses that the cross-member (12) can be made of flame-retardant polypropylene ([0031]), reading on the claimed polymer-based material.
Regarding claim 6, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the at least one point (62) is part of a pointed edge that extends longitudinally (see Figs. 6 and 7; [0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the at least one point (62) is part of a serrated edge (see Fig. 7; [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the point (62) can be made of a resin member ([0048]), reading on the claimed polymer-based material.
Regarding claim 9, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the first tab terminal (25) is made of aluminum ([0026]), and the second tab terminal (35) is made of copper ([0027]), reading on all of the limitations in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals each extend from a lithium-ion battery cell (11) ([0049]).
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherng (US 2008/0241671).
Regarding claim 1, Cherng discloses a battery pack system (title; abstract), comprising: a first tab terminal (121); a second tab terminal; and at least one point (223) spaced a distance from the first (121) and second tab terminals (see Modified Figure 4 below; [0020]-[0022]), the at least one point (223) configured to pierce at least the first tab terminal (121) when the first tab terminal (121) and the at least one point (223) are shifted relative to each other such that the at least one point (223) contacts the first tab terminal (121) (see Figs. 4-6; [0022]).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Cherng
Regarding claim 2, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses a cross-member (2) that includes the at least one point (223) (see Figs. 1-4; [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Cherng further discloses an aperture in the cross-member (2) (see Modified Figure 2 below), the first (121) and second tab terminals connected to each other (see Fig. 4), the first tab terminal (121) extending through the aperture (see Modified Figure 2 below; [0021]-[0022]), and the at least one point (223) disposed about a perimeter of the aperture (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0021]).
PNG
media_image3.png
418
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Cherng
Regarding claim 4, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 3. Cherng further discloses that the at least one point (223) is disposed along one side of the aperture (see Figs. 1-4; [0021]). Examiner notes that the limitation “with reference to an orientation of the aperture when installed within a vehicle” is merely intended use language that fails to require structure not already present in the battery pack system of Cherng. Furthermore, since the at least one point (223) disclosed by Cherng is disposed along one side of the aperture, it is clear that the battery pack system of Cherng is capable of being installed within a vehicle such that the at least one point is disposed along an inboard side of the aperture with reference to an orientation of the aperture within the vehicle. Thus, Cherng reads on all of the limitations in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Cherng further discloses that the cross-member (2) is formed of a plastic material ([0021]), reading on the claimed polymer-based material.
Regarding claim 6, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the at least one point (223) is part of a cutting knife (221) with continuous teeth (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0021]). Thus, since the teeth on the cutting knife (221) are continuous, the teeth are considered to read on the claimed pointed edge that extends longitudinally.
Regarding claim 7, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the at least one point (223) is part of a serrated edge (see Figs. 1 and 3; [0021]).
Regarding claim 9, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that all of the tab terminals in the battery pack system can be made of either aluminum or copper ([0020]), reading on all of the limitations in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that a 2 mm lateral displacement is sufficient for the at least one point (223) to cut the first tab terminal (121) ([0022]). Thus, Cherng necessarily satisfies the claimed limitation that the separation distance between the at least one point (223) and the first tab terminal (121) is three millimeters to less.
Regarding claim 11, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that each of the tab terminals each extend from a lithium-ion battery cell (1) ([0020]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 13, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the first (121) and second tab terminals are joined together through an intermediate connector (see Modified Figure 4 below; [0022]).
PNG
media_image4.png
506
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4, Cherng
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP 2011249428 with English Machine Translation) in view of Khakhalev (US 2010/0190055).
Regarding claim 12, Kanda discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kanda further discloses that the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals are electrically connected together by welding ([0030]). Kanda fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the welding involves a plurality of welds.
However, it is common in the art to weld tab terminals using a plurality of welds. For instance, Khakhalev teaches a similar battery pack system (title; abstract) comprising a first tab terminal (30A) and a second tab terminal (30B) that are electrically connected through a plurality of welds (22A, 22B) (see Figs. 3A and 3B; [0022]-[0033]). Khakhalev further teaches that these welds (22A, 22B) are sufficient to ensure electrical conduction between the various battery cells (24) ([0024]).
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 welding process disclosed by Kanda to include a plurality of welds, as taught by Khakhalev, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would ensure sufficient electrical connection between the first and second tab terminals.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherng (US 2008/0241671) in view Kanda (JP 2011249428 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 8, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the panel (21) on the cross-member (2) which includes the at least one point (223) is made of a plastic material ([0021]; see also Fig. 1). However, Cherng fails to explicitly disclose the material composition of the at least one point (223).
Kanda teaches a similar battery pack system (title; abstract), comprising: a first tab terminal (25); a second tab terminal (35) (see Fig. 1; [0030]); and at least one point (62) spaced a distance from the first (25) and second (35) tab terminals (see Figs. 1 and 6; [0033]-[0035]), wherein the at least one point (62) is designed to split open a container (46) of a storage cell (11), which is made of an aluminum laminate film ([0028]; [0036]). Kanda further teaches that a cross-member (12) comprising the at least one point (62) is made of a resin material ([0031]), and the point (62) can also be made of a resin material and be integrally formed with the cross-member (12) in order to reduce cost ([0048]).
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 at least one point on the cross-member disclosed by Cherng to also be made of a plastic material, as taught by Kanda, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would reduce cost.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherng (US 2008/0241671) in view of Khakhalev (US 2010/0190055).
Regarding claim 12, Cherng discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cherng further discloses that the first (121) and second tab terminals are connected to each other through an intermediate connector (see Modified Figure 4 above; [0022]). However, Cherng fails to explicitly disclose that a plurality of welds electrically connect the first (121) and second tab terminals.
However, it is common in the art to electrically connect tab terminals through an intermediate connector by a plurality of welds. For instance, Khakhalev teaches a similar battery pack system (title; abstract) comprising a first tab terminal (30A) and a second tab terminal (30B) that are electrically connected through an intermediate connector (10) by a plurality of welds (22A, 22B) (see Figs. 3A and 3B; [0022]-[0033]). Khakhalev further teaches that these welds (22A, 22B) are sufficient to ensure electrical conduction between the various battery cells (24) ([0024]).
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 battery pack system disclosed by Cherng such that a plurality of welds electrically connect the first and second tab terminals, as taught by Khakhalev, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would ensure sufficient electrical conduction between the first and second tab terminals.
Conclusion
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