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 the initial Office action based on application number 18/310183 filed on 4/10/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The terms “a male terminal compression means” of claim 2 is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The structure in the specification as filed corresponding to “a sloped or ramped surface” ([0144]; fig. 11, reference no. 2140).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is: “a male terminal compression means” in claims 3 and 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
(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, 5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichikawa et al. (US 20180034014 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Ichikawa et al. disclose a battery pack having a combination of a plurality of battery modules (par. 2) which can be used as a power source for drive motors of electric vehicles (par. 3). The battery pack (10) comprising:
a battery module (1) (equivalent to a first battery module) (par. 27, fig. 1) having:
(i) a case (3) and an insulation cover (7) (equivalent to a battery module housing) (par. 28, fig. 4);
(ii) battery cells (4) inside the case (3) (equivalent to a battery cell positioned within the battery module housing) (par. 28, fig. 4);
(iii) a case-side half-split section (57) and a cover-side half-split section (75) (equivalent to a female terminal housing) (par. 47, fig. 2, fig. 4), wherein at least an extent of the combination of the case-side half-split section (57) and the cover-side half-split section (75) is positioned outside of the case (3) (equivalent to associated with the battery module housing) (fig. 4);
(iv) an end portion (13b) (equivalent to a female terminal assembly) configured to receive an outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to a male terminal assembly) (par. 38, fig. 4, 6), wherein the end portion (13b) is positioned within the combination of the case-side half-split section (57) and the cover-side half-split section (75) but not enclosed by the case (3) (fig. 2, 4); and
(v) an inner end portion (13a) and a bus bar (22) (equivalent to an electrical transfer assembly) positioned within the case (3) (par. 41, 42, fig. 4), the bus bar (22) is electrically coupled to the both the end portion (13b) and a negative electrode (43A) of the battery cell (par. 41, 42, fig. 4), wherein electrical current flows between the battery cell (4), the bus bar (22), and the end portion (13b) during operation of the battery module (1) (par. 27, 40-42).
Regarding to claim 5: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) further comprising an outer end portion (11b) of a first connection terminal piece (11) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4), a ring-shaped opening edge (81a) (the outer end portion (11b) and the ring-shaped opening edge (81a) are equivalent to the male terminal assembly) (par. 49, fig. 6), and a ring-shaped fitting groove (83a) (the end portion (13b) and the ring-shaped fitting groove (83a) are equivalent to the female terminal assembly) (par. 49, fig. 6), wherein the ring-shaped fitting groove (83a) is adapted to be fitted to the ring-shaped opening edge (81a) (user can virtually see if the ring-shaped fitting groove (83a) is correctly fitted into the ring-shaped opening edge (81a) from outside (fig. 6)) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly and the female terminal assembly cooperatively interact to provide tactical feedback to a user that informs the user that the male terminal assembly is positioned in the female terminal assembly).
Regarding to claim 9: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) further comprising an outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly) of a first connection terminal piece (11) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4), and wherein the end portion (13b) and the outer end portion (11b) can be connected by simply butting each other (equivalent to an extent of the male terminal assembly inserted into an extent of the female terminal assembly without a lever assist) (par. 54, 55, fig. 6).
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.
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 2, 3, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 20180034014 A1) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Rangi et al. (US 9444205 B2).
Regarding to claim 2: Ichikawa et al. disclose an outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to a male terminal assembly) of a first connection terminal piece (11). Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the female terminal housing includes a male terminal compression means configured to compress an extent of the male terminal assembly during its connection to the female terminal housing. However, Rangi et al. disclose an electric connector for power distribution (abstract, col. 1, lines 16-21). The electric connector (10) includes a spring (34) (equivalent to the female terminal housing) (col. 3, lines 5-20). The spring (34) includes a plurality of spring arms (54). The spring arms has a sloped surface (equivalent to a male terminal compression means) toward a central space (fig. 3) and configured to increase the force of contact arms (46) which engage a corresponding connector (31) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly) (col. 2, lines 45-48, col. 3, lines 5-20, fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sloped surface (equivalent to male terminal compression means) of Rangi et al. into the case-side half-split section (57) and the cover-side half-split section (75) of Ichikawa et al. because Rangi et al. teach that the slope of the spring arms (54) can increase force of the contact arms (46) to engage the corresponding connector (31) (col. 3, lines 12-20).
Regarding to claim 3: Ichikawa et al. disclose a battery pack having a combination of a plurality of battery modules as described in paragraph 6 above. Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the male terminal compression means of the female terminal housing extends rearward from an outermost edge of said female terminal housing. However, Rangi et al. disclose an electric connector for power distribution (abstract, col. 1, lines 16-21). The electric connector (10) includes a spring (34) (equivalent to the female terminal housing) (col. 3, lines 5-20). The spring (34) includes a plurality of spring arms (54). The spring arms has a sloped surface (equivalent to a male terminal compression means) toward a central space (fig. 4). The slope surface extends rearward from an outermost edge of the spring arms (54) (fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sloped surface extending rearward from an outermost edge of the spring arms (54) (the spring arms (54) are part of the female terminal housing) of Rangi et al. into the case-side half-split section (57) and the cover-side half-split section (75) of Ichikawa et al. because Rangi et al. teach that that the slope of the spring arms (54) can increase force of the contact arms (46) to engage the corresponding connector (31) (col. 3, lines 12-20).
Regarding to claim 4: Ichikawa et al. disclose a battery pack having a combination of a plurality of battery modules as described in paragraph 6 above. Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the male terminal compression means of the female terminal housing is a sloped wall with: (a) a rearmost edge that is positioned adjacent to an uppermost edge of the female terminal assembly and (b) an inner surface that is angled with respect to an outer surface of the female terminal housing. However, Rangi et al. disclose an electric connector for power distribution (abstract, col. 1, lines 16-21). The electric connector (10) includes a spring (34) (equivalent to the female terminal housing) (col. 3, lines 5-20, fig. 3, 5). The spring (34) includes a plurality of spring arms (54). The spring arms has a sloped surface (equivalent to a sloped wall) toward a central space (fig. 4). The slope is with: (a) a rearmost edge that is positioned adjacent to an uppermost edge of the female terminal assembly (the part below the contact arms (46) is equivalent to the female terminal assembly. See fig. FT below) and (b) an inner surface that is angled with respect to an outer surface of the female terminal housing (fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sloped surface (equivalent to the sloped wall) of Rangi et al. into the case-side half-split section (57) and the cover-side half-split section (75) of Ichikawa et al. because Rangi et al. teach that the slope of the spring arms (54) can increase force of the contact arms (46) to engage the corresponding connector (31) (col. 3, lines 12-20).
PNG
media_image1.png
1070
1314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 6: Ichikawa et al. disclose a battery pack having a combination of a plurality of battery modules as described in paragraph 6 above. Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose an elongated touch-proof element positioned in a female receiver formed by the female terminal assembly. However, Rangi et al. disclose an electric connector for power distribution (abstract, col. 1, lines 16-21). The electric connector (10) includes a pin (36) (equivalent to an elongated touch-proof element) positioned in a central space (50) (equivalent to a female receiver) of the base conductor (32) (col. 2, lines 55-7, col. 3, lines 30-41, fig. 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the pin (36) (equivalent to an elongated touch-proof element) of Rangi et al. into the center of the end portion (13b) of Ichikawa et al. because Rangi et al teach that the pin (36) can protect the contact arms (46) from accidental contact and prevent damage to the terminals and to avoid unintended grounding of electric current (col. 1, lines 22-29, col. 3, lines 21-29).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 20180034014 A1) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Pavlovic et al. (US 20180191095 A1).
Regarding to claim 7: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) further comprising an outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly) of a first connection terminal piece (11) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4), and wherein the end portion (13b) receives the outer end portion (11b) (par. 54, fig. 6). Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the male terminal assembly applies an outwardly directed force on each side of the female terminal assembly. However, Pavlovic et al. disclose a high-power, spring-actuated connector device (abstract). The connector device comprises a female connector (70) (equivalent to a male terminal assembly) (par. 69, fig. 9) and a male terminal portion (1) (equivalent to a female terminal assembly) (par. 74, fig. 1). When the female connector (70) fits inside the male terminal portion (1), there is a contact force between contact beams (61) of the female connector (70) and an inner cylindrical surface (9) of the male terminal portion (1) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly applies an outwardly directed force on each side of the female terminal assembly) (par. 75). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the contact force of Pavlovic et al. into between the end portion (13b) and the outer end portion (11b) of Ichikawa et al. because contact force can secure electrical contact (par. 8).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 20180034014 A1) as applied in claim 1 above.
Regarding to claim 8: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) further comprising an outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly) of a first connection terminal piece (11) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4), and wherein the end portion (13b) receives the outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to an extent of the male terminal assembly inserted into an extent of the female terminal assembly) (par. 54, fig. 6). Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the insertion requires less than 45 Newtons. However, it is deemed to have been an obvious matter of design to form the connector system (between the outer end portion (11b) and the end portion (13b)) of Ichikawa et al. to require an insertion force of less than 45 Newtons to allow easy insertion operation.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 20180034014 A1) in view of Rangi et al. (US 9444205 B2) as applied in claim 2 above, and further in view of Pavlovic et al. (US 20180191095 A1).
Regarding to claim 10: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) further comprising an outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly) of a first connection terminal piece (11) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4). Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the male terminal assembly includes a male terminal body with a rear wall and an arrangement of side walls defining a receiver with an opening, wherein at least one side wall within the arrangement of side walls includes: a first contact arm opening formed through the side wall; an intermediate segment positioned between the first contact arm opening and the rear wall of the male terminal body; an end segment extending (i) from the intermediate segment, and (ii) along the first contact arm opening; and a first deformable contact arm extending (i) at an outward angle from the intermediate segment, (ii) along an extent of the first contact arm opening, and (iii) towards a front extent of the male terminal body. However, Pavlovic et al. disclose a high-power, spring-actuated connector device (abstract). The connector device comprises a female connector (320) (equivalent to a male terminal assembly) (par. 77, fig. 15) and a male terminal (360) (equivalent to a female terminal assembly) (par. 79, fig. 16, 17).
The female connector (320) includes a contact element (310) (equivalent to a male terminal body) with a rear wall (fig. 15) and four sides (318) (equivalent to an arrangement of side walls) (par. 77, fig. 15) defining a receiver with an opening (opening at front of the female connector (320) is shown in fig. 15), wherein the four sides (318) include:
a contact beam opening (equivalent to a first contact arm opening) next to a contact beam (311) (par. 77, fig. 15) formed through the sides (318);
a base (350) (equivalent to intermediate segment) positioned between the opening and the rear wall of the contact element (310) (fig. 15);
a bent portion (319) (equivalent to an end segment) (par. 77, fig. 15) extending (i) from the base (350), and (ii) along the contact beam opening (fig. 15); and
a contact beam (311) (equivalent to a first deformable contact arm) (par. 77, fig. 15) extending along an extent of the contact beam opening. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the outer end portion (11b) of Ichikawa et al. with the female connector (320) of Pavlovic et al. because Pavlovic et al. teach the female connector (320) with these features can make a high-power, spring-actuated electrical connector device (par. 7).
Ichikawa et al. and the embodiment of fig. 15 of Pavlovic et al. fail to explicitly disclose a first deformable contact arm extending (i) at an outward angle from the intermediate segment, and (iii) towards a front extent of the male terminal body. However, Pavlovic et al. further disclose another embodiment of fig. 3. In the embodiment of fig. 3, a female connector (20) includes a contact element (10) (equivalent to the male terminal body) (par. 63, fig. 3). A contact beam (11) (equivalent to a first deformable contact arm) extending (i) at an outward angle from a base (18) (equivalent to the intermediate segment), and (iii) towards a front extent of the contact element (10) (par. 63, fig. 3, 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the contact beam (11) of the embodiment of fig. 3 of Pavlovic et al. in the contact element (310) of the embodiment of fig. 15 of Pavlovic et al. because it is obvious to try different orientations of the contact beams (311, 11) in the contact element (310) with a reasonable expectation for success. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding to claim 11: Ichikawa et al. in view of Pavlovic et al. disclose a battery module with the modified outer end portion (11b) as described above. Ichikawa et al. and the embodiment of fig. 15 of Pavlovic et al. fail to explicitly disclose when electrical current is applied to the male terminal body, electrical current is not required to flow through the end segment to reach the first deformable contact arm. However, Pavlovic et al. further disclose another embodiment of fig. 3. In the embodiment of fig. 3, a female connector (20) includes a contact element (10) (equivalent to the male terminal body) (par. 63, fig. 3) and a contact beam (11) (equivalent to a first deformable contact arm). When electrical current is applied to the contact element (10), electrical current flows to the contact beam (11) directly (par. 65, fig. 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the electrical current directly flow to the contact beam (11) of the embodiment of fig. 3 of Pavlovic et al. in the contact element (310) of the embodiment of fig. 15 of Pavlovic et al. which is already incorporated in the outer end portion (11b) of Ichikawa et al. because it is obvious to try different electrical current flow directions via different orientations of the contact beams (311, 11) in the contact element (310) with a reasonable expectation for success. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding to claim 12: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) further comprising an outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly) of a first connection terminal piece (11) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4). Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the male terminal assembly includes: (i) a male terminal body having a receiver and a first contact arm and (ii) an internal spring member dimensioned to reside within the receiver of the male terminal assembly and having a first spring arm; and wherein the female terminal assembly has a receptacle dimensioned to receive a portion of both the male terminal assembly and the internal spring member residing within the receiver of the male terminal assembly to define a connected position. However, Pavlovic et al. disclose a high-power, spring-actuated connector device (abstract). The connector device comprises a female connector (20) (equivalent to male terminal assembly) which includes: a contact element (10) (equivalent to the male terminal body) (par. 63, fig. 3) having an opening (equivalent to a receiver) (fig. 5) and a contact beam (11) (equivalent to a first contact arm) (par. 63, fig. 3-5) and (ii) spring actuator (30) (equivalent to an internal spring member) (par. 65, fig. 3-5) sitting inside the female connector (20) (equivalent to dimensioned to reside within the receiver of the male terminal assembly) (par. 65, fig. 3-5) and having a plurality spring arms (31) (equivalent to a first spring arm) (par. 65, fig. 5). Pavlovic et al. further disclose a male terminal (1) (equivalent to the female terminal assembly) (par. 74, fig. 1-2) has a round opening (equivalent to a receptacle) (par. 74, fig. 1, 2). The female connector (20) including the contact element (10) and the spring actuator (30) can fit inside the male terminal portion (1) (equivalent to the female terminal assembly having a receptacle dimensioned to receive a portion of both the male terminal assembly and the internal spring member residing within the receiver of the male terminal assembly) (par. 74-76, fig. 1, 2, 21-24). An inner cylindrical surface (9) of the male terminal (1) contacts the contact element (equivalent to defining a connected position (par. 76). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the outer end portion (11b) and the end portion (13b) of Ichikawa et al. with the female connector (20) and the male terminal (1) of Pavlovic et al. because Pavlovic et al. teach these features can make a high-power, spring-actuated electrical connector device (par. 7).
Regarding to claim 13: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) further comprising an outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to the male terminal assembly) of a first connection terminal piece (11) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4). Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the first spring arm is configured to provide a biasing force on the first contact arm under certain operating conditions of the first battery module. However, Pavlovic et al. disclose a high-power, spring-actuated connector device (abstract). The connector device comprises a contact beam (11) (equivalent to a first contact arm) (par. 63, fig. 3-5) and a plurality spring arms (31) (equivalent to a first spring arm) (par. 65, fig. 5). At elevated temperatures (equivalent to certain operating conditions), the outward directed spring force exerted by the spring arms (31) on the contact beams (11) is increased (equivalent to the first spring arm configured to provide a biasing force on the first contact arm) (par. 75). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention add the outward directed spring force of Pavlovic et al. in the outer end portion (11b) of Ichikawa et al. because Pavlovic et al. teach the force can secure the electrical contact (par. 8-9).
Claims 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 20180034014 A1) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Lui et al. (US 20200168862 A1).
Regarding to claim 14: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) comprising:
an outer end portion (11b) and a bus bar (22) (the outer end portion (11b) and the bus bar (22) are equivalent to a positive connector module) (the bus bar (22) electrically connected to the outer end portion (11b) is equivalent to a first busbar) (par. 39, fig. 4);
the end portion (13b) (equivalent to a second female terminal assembly) and a bus bar (22) (the outer end portion (13b) and the bus bar (22) are equivalent to a negative connector module) (the bus bar (22) electrically connected to the end portion (13b) is equivalent to a second busbar) (par. 42, fig. 4); and
wherein (a) a positive electrode (41A) is electrically connected to the first bus bar (22) (par. 39), and (b) a negative electrode (43A) is electrically connected to the second bus bar (22) (par. 42)
Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose an outer end portion (11b) is a female terminal assembly. However, Lui et al. disclose a power tool system and a battery pack. The power tool system comprises conductive terminals (211, 214) electrically connecting to the positive terminal and the negative terminal respectively (fig. 8, 9) (the conductive terminal (211) is equivalent to the female terminal assembly and the conductive terminal (214) is equivalent to the second female terminal assembly) (par. 72-73). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the outer end portion (11b) of Ichikawa et al. with the female terminal assembly (conductive terminals (211)) of Lui et al. because Lui et al. teach the multiple female terminals can make an easy switch between two different voltages, so that the battery pack is widely used (par. 82).
Regarding to claim 16: Ichikawa et al. disclose the positive electrode (41A) is welded to the first bus bar (22) (par. 39) and the negative electrode (43A) is welded to the second bus bar (22) (par. 42).
Regarding to claim 17: Ichikawa et al. disclose the positive electrode (41A) is welded to the first bus bar (22) (par. 39) and the negative electrode (43A) is welded to the second bus bar (22) (par. 42).
Regarding to claim 18: Ichikawa et al. disclose the inner end portion (11a) is electrically connected to the positive electrode (41A) via the first bus bar (22) by welding (par. 39) and the inner end portion (13a) is electrically connected to the negative electrode (43A) via the second bus bar (22) by welding (par. 42).
Regarding to claim 19: Ichikawa et al. disclose the outer end portion (13b) (equivalent to a negative connector module) is disposed above the case-side half-split section (57) (equivalent to the female terminal housing) (par. 43). Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose the female terminal housing is integrally formed in the positive connector module. However, it is deemed to have been an obvious matter of design to place the modified outer end portion (11b) (equivalent to positive connector module) (the outer end portion (11b) is already modified to be the female terminal assembly as described in claim 14 in paragraph 11 above) above the case-side half-split section (57) (equivalent to the female terminal housing) with a reasonable expectation for success. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding to claim 20: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10), wherein the battery cell (4) is a first battery cell (par. 28, fig. 4);
wherein a second battery cell (4) is positioned within the case (3) and the insulation cover (7) (equivalent to the battery module housing) (par. 28, fig. 4);
wherein the electrical transfer assembly further includes:
an outer end portion (11b) and a bus bar (22) (the outer end portion (11b) and the bus bar (22) are equivalent to a positive connector module) (the bus bar (22) electrically connected to the outer end portion (11b) is equivalent to a first busbar) (par. 39, fig. 4);
the end portion (13b) (equivalent to a second female terminal assembly) and a bus bar (22) (the outer end portion (13b) and the bus bar (22) are equivalent to a negative connector module) (the bus bar (22) electrically connected to the end portion (13b) is equivalent to a second busbar) (par. 42, fig. 4);
a bus bar (21) (equivalent to a third busbar) (par. 28, fig. 4); and
wherein (a) a positive electrode (41A) of the first battery cell is electrically connected to the first bus bar (22) (par. 39), (b) a negative electrode of the first battery cell is electrically coupled to the bus bar (21), (c) a positive electrode of the second battery cell is electrically coupled to the bus bar (21), (d) a negative electrode (43A) of the second battery cell is electrically connected to the second bus bar (22) (par. 42). See fig. CN below.
PNG
media_image2.png
1208
1354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ichikawa et al. fail to explicitly disclose an outer end portion (11b) is a female terminal assembly and a jumper interface. However, Lui et al. disclose a power tool system and a battery pack. The power tool system comprises conductive terminals (211, 214) electrically connecting to the positive terminal and the negative terminal respectively (fig. 8, 9) (the conductive terminal (211) is equivalent to the female terminal assembly and the conductive terminal (214) is equivalent to the second female terminal assembly) (par. 72-73). Lui et al. further disclose auxiliary contacting arms (2122, 2132) (equivalent to a jumper interface) (par. 72, fig. 8). The auxiliary contacting arms (2122, 2132) are electrically connected with each other, so that two battery cell groups (202, 203) are connected in series (par. 73, fig. 8, 9). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the outer end portion (11b) of Ichikawa et al. with the female terminal assembly (conductive terminals (211)) of Lui et al. and add the jumper interface (auxiliary contacting arms (2122, 2132)) of Lui et al. into the battery pack (10) of Ichikawa et al. because Lui et al. teach the multiple female terminals and the auxiliary contacting arms (2122, 2132) can make an easy switch between two different voltages, so that the battery pack is widely used (82).
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 20180034014 A1) in view of Lui et al. (US 20200168862 A1) as applied in claim 14 above, and further in view of Dawley et al. (US 20210074985 A1).
Regarding to claim 10: Ichikawa et al. disclose the battery pack (10) as described in paragraph 6 above. Ichikawa et al. and Lui et al. fail to explicitly disclose the first busbar is bimetallic and the second busbar is not bimetallic. However, Dawley et al. disclose assemblies and methods for manufacturing a battery (abstract). In various embodiments, a single material bus bar (502) (par. 47, 49, fig. 7, 10) or a bimetallic bus bar (802, 902) (par. 48, fig. 8, 9) can be used in the battery module (100) (fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the single material bus bar (502) and the bimetallic bus bar (802, 902) of Dawley et al. as the second bus bar (22) and the first bus bar (22) of Ichikawa et al. because Dawley et al. teach assemblies and methods for effectively connecting the individual cells of a battery together for efficient and durable electrical conduction (par. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717