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 .
Response to Amendment
In Applicant’s response dated 6/9/26, Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 16, and 24 are amended. Claims 1-24 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 is sufficient to overcome the previous claim objection in the Office Action dated 2/12/2026; therefore, the objection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment to claims 5, 8, and 10 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejections in the recites Office Action. Therefore, those rejections are withdrawn; however, claims 1-23 are rejected for indefiniteness as described below. The previous rejections are modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 and 16-23 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 1 requires in lines 6-11: a first side wall extending transverse to the support surface, a second side wall extending transverse to the support surface and disposed opposite the first side wall, a third side wall extending transverse to the support surface, the first side wall, and the second side wall, and an opening disposed opposite the first side wall.
Claim 1 further requires in lines 14-15: an end plate coupled to the core box, the end plate covering the opening disposed opposite the first side wall.
Such configuration is geometrically not possible as claimed, which makes the claim indefinite. Specifically, the second side wall is transverse to the support surface and opposite the first side wall and the third side wall is transverse to the first and second side walls and the support surface. Therefore, the claimed opening (which is covered by the end plate in lines 14-15) cannot also be opposite the first side wall and must instead be opposite the third side wall (see drawing below).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “opening disposed opposite the first side wall” as follows:
Line 11: an opening disposed opposite the third side wall
Line 14-15: the end plate covering the opening disposed opposite the third side wall.
The Examiner’s interpretation is supported by the instant specification Figs. 17, 18 and [PGPub 0081].
If arguments are presented that claim 1 is definite as written, a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection may be considered in future Office Actions as such configuration is not supported by the instant specification.
Claims 2-15 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 16, line 6 recites “a wall of the enclosure” and lines 8-9 recite “a wall of the enclosure”, making the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the one wall is claimed (for example, the wall has an end plate and a circuit board or an end plate that is a circuit board), or if two walls are claimed (for example, a first wall and a second wall). Further, the Examiner has referenced the specification for any special meaning of “walls of the enclosure” and there is no reference to an enclosure in the instant specification. For purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as line 6 is “a first wall of the enclosure” and lines 8-9 as “a second wall of the enclosure”. Claims 17--23 depend on claim 16 and are therefore also indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey et al. [US20220115714A1, as provided on the IDS dated 2/18/2025], hereinafter Davey, in view of Musetti US20130273400A1, provided on the IDS dated 2/18/2025 as US8652678B2.
Regarding claim 1, Davey discloses battery pack [Davey throughout] comprising:
a housing [Davey 0218 and throughout, Figs. 33-84, housing 1102/1104];
a core box disposed in the housing, the core box including a support surface [Davey 0248-0249, 254 and throughout, Figs. 45-83 core box is holder 1264 with support surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264.],
a first side wall extending transverse to the support surface [Davey 0248-0249, 254, Figs. 45-83 and throughout, the first side wall is the side portion of 1264a/b on either the left or right side],
a second side wall extending transverse to the support surface and disposed opposite the first side wall [Davey 0248-0249, 254, Figs. 45-83 and throughout, the second side wall is the side portion of 1264a/b on the opposite of either the left or right],
a third side wall extending transverse to the support surface, the first side wall and the second side wall [Davey 0248-0249, 254, Figs. 45-83 and throughout, the third side wall is the rear portion of 1264b on the opposite of the end portion of 1264a with slots],
a stack of pouch cells supported by the support surface, each pouch cell having cell tabs extending from a common side of the pouch cell [Davey 0221-0250, 0289, 0300 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, 61-70 with pouch cells 1210, 1220, 1230, 1240, 1250 with tabs 1216a and b, 1226a and b, 1236a and b, 1246a and b, and 1256a and b, respectively, tabs a/b for each cell on the same side of pouch, and cells supported on the support surface described above, as shown in Figs. 45-46 and others];
an end plate coupled to the core box [Davey 0226-0227, 0269, 0277, Figs. 46, 51-54 and throughout, end plate is 1264a/ 1268 coupled to core box 1264a/b/1260f], the end plate disposed opposite the third side wall, [See 112b rejection/interpretation. Davey 0226-0227, 0269, 0277, Figs. 46, 51-54, 68-70, 77-78 and throughout, end plate 1264a/1268 covers the opening directly opposite the third wall as described above. See, for example Figs. 77-78], the end plate having slots defined therein [Davey 0269, 0277, 0290, and throughout, Figs. 51, 57A, 71, 77-78 and others and throughout, slots 1284 and 1292], the cell tabs extending through the slots [Davey 0269, 0277, Figs. 51, 60, 71 and others, and throughout, tabs 1216a and b, 1226a and b, 1236a and b, 1246a and b, and 1256a and b];
battery pack terminals electrically connected to the stack of pouch cells, the battery pack terminals configured to electrically connect to an electrical device [Davey 0220 and throughout, Figs. 41-46, battery pack terminals 1276 for connection to power tool terminals 1024]; and
a circuit board coupled to the core box opposite the support surface [Davey 0226-0257, 0288, 0330 Figs. 45-46, 76 and throughout, circuit board 1266 coupled to 1264 a/b through support wall 1265], the circuit board electrically connected to the stack of pouch cells [Davey 0228-0229, 0232-0235 and throughout ]and the battery pack terminals [Davey 0228-0229, 0257 and throughout], wherein the core box, the end plate, and the circuit board cooperate to enclose the stack of pouch cells [Davey Figs. 33-84, Particularity Figs. 40, 42-44, 54, 76, 77, 81, 83, 84 show core box 1264a/b and support 1260f with end plate 1264a, 1268 and upper circuit board 1266 enclosing the pouch cells.].
PNG
media_image2.png
485
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
458
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Davey is silent to
(a) the core box has an opening disposed opposite the support surface (which would be an opening in the upper portion of Davey’s core box on the upper portion of the first, second, and third side walls of 1264 shown above),
(b) an opening disposed opposite the third side wall [See 112b rejection/interpretation above.],
(c) the end plate covering the opening disposed opposite the third side wall [See 112b rejection/interpretation above.], and
(d) the circuit board covers the opening disposed opposite the support surface.
Musetti teaches a core box 12 for a battery pack [Musetti 0088-0089 and throughout, Figs. 1A-3]. Musetti’s core box 12 includes (a), (b), (d), and other limitations of the core box as described below.
an opening disposed opposite the support surface [Musetti 0090, Fig. 1A and throughout, Regarding the claimed opening, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Fig. 1A is that wall 14 is a lid for an opening in enclosure 12 since it is shown separated from the other parts of core box 12. If not, such modification is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, C since such modification could support replacement/facilitation of the circuit board and would not change the function of the wall supporting the circuit board 34. Further, regarding the claimed support surface, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Fig. 1A is that wall 16 can be a support surface for the cells 24 (as a foundation for the core box) since the battery pack could be used in any orientation required by the specific design of a device using the battery pack (see MPEP 2144.04 I) and, further, the wall 16 provides support such as resistance to maintain the cell stack upright if the battery pack is used in the orientation shown in Fig. 1A. Wall 16 is considered opposite the opening enclosed by lid 14 in Fig. 1A.],
a first side wall extending transverse to the support surface [Musetti 0090 and throughout, Fig. 1A, first side wall 18]
a second sidewall extending transverse to the support surface, the first side wall and disposed opposite the second side wall [Musetti 0090 and throughout, Fig. 1A, second side wall 18 (described but not shown)],
a third side wall extending transverse to the support surface, the first side wall, and the second side wall [Musetti 0090 and throughout, Fig. 1A, third size wall 20],
an opening disposed opposite the third side wall [Musetti Fig. 1A shows the core box 12 is open on the side of the box where the electrode tabs for the stack of pouch cells 24 protrudes [Musetti 0085 and throughout, Figs. 1A-3],
(d) a circuit board coupled to the core box opposite the support surface, the circuit board covering the opening disposed opposite the support surface [Musetti 0096-0098, Fig. 1A, circuit board 34 is mounted to 14 as shown and Davey recites the circuit board can be mounted to any surface. As shown in Fig. 1A, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Musetti is that the circuit board covers the opening disposed opposite the support surface as described in (a) above.
It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Musetti’s teachings (a), (b), (d) about the openings of a core box 12 as described above. Specifically, regarding(a) and (d), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to apply Musetti’s teachings by either (1) omitting the upper surface of Davey’s core box 1264 as an obvious design choice if the protective features provided by Davey’s upper surface are not needed to protect the battery pack ( MPEP 2144.04 II, A and MPEP 2144.04 I) or (2) making the upper separable as a design choice to permit repair/ replacement of parts or for manufacturing purposes, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, C. With such modification, the upper surface of Davey’s core box would have (a) an opening disposed opposite Davey’s support surface and (d) Davey’s circuit board 1266 attached to support wall 1265, as described above (or with 1265 omitted if not needed for design purposes, see MPEP 2144.04 II, A and 2144.04 I) covering the opening disposed opposite the support surface (1264a/b lower portion and 1260f).
Further, it would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Musetti’s teachings (b) to Davey’s battery pack by providing an opening in the side of Davey’s core box 1264a (the side where slots for the electrode tabs of the battery cells penetrate the core box 1264) by either (1) omitting this side of the core box 1264a as a design choice if the protective features provided by the side of 1264a with slots are not needed to protect the battery cells, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 II, A and MPEP 2144.04 I or by (2) making the side of 1264a separable such that an opening is present to permit repair/ replacement of parts or for manufacturing purposes, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 V, C. Such modifications of Davey’s battery pack meet limitations (b) and further obviate limitation (c) since end plate 1264a/ 1268 would cover the opening disposed opposite the third side wall [See 112b interpretation]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Musetti’s teachings to Davey’s battery pack as described above by merely omitting or making separable the upper surface of 1264 and omitting or making separable the portion of 1264a with slots for the electrode tabs since such modifications are design choices as supported by the MPEP sections recited above with the predictable result of a battery pack for powering a device.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1, further comprising a resilient layer disposed between adjacent pouch cells of the stack of pouch cells [Davey 0255, Figs. 45-46, insulating layers 1260b-1260e].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1, further including a resilient layer disposed between the circuit board and the stack of pouch cells [Davey 0255, Figs. 45-46, insulating layer 1260a].
Regarding Claim 4 and 5, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1. Davey does not explicitly teach the relational height between the stack of pouch cells and the height of the core box; however, the skilled artisan would expect Figs. 45-46, 68-69, 78-80, and others indicate the general relationship that height of the stack of pouch cells (cells 1210, 1220,1230,1240,1250, with the resilient layers 1260a-1260f) is more than 60 % (claim 4) and 70% (claim 5) of the height of the holder 1264 (core box). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at this size relationship from the prior art of Davey and to further refine the range by routine experimentation as a design choice related to the requirements of the battery pack. Generally, it would be expected that for an application requiring higher power, larger battery cells or more battery cells are required than for an application requiring less power. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to minimize the overall size of the core box to be less than the maximum size for the specific application but large enough to accommodate battery cells to provide the required power output/capacity and enough space for features such as ventilation, insulation, sensors, etc. for performance and safety. Thus, the relational height would be a result-effective variable, depending on the application, where if the height of the battery cell stack relative to the size of the core box is too high there may not be enough space for the required safety and performance features and if the height of the battery cell stack relative to the size of the core box is too low, there may not be enough energy density to achieve the required power output/capacity. Determining the workable relationship between the height of the stack of the battery cells and the height of the core box can be determined through routine optimization for the specific design, application, and use environment by balancing the space requirements and performance/safety requirements, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05IIA, routine optimization. Further, changes in size/proportion are obvious per MPEP 2144.04 IV,A. Therefore, the prior art meets claims 4-5.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1. Davey does not explicitly teach the height of the battery pack; however, the skilled artisan would know that the height of the battery pack would be a design choice related to the specific application and would further be a result effective variable. If the battery pack height is too large, it may be not meet the geometric requirements of the application. If the battery pack height is too small, it may not be large enough to house a battery that is sized for the required power/capacity or any necessary electronics or other features such as ventilation for safety and performance. Determining the workable height would be determined through routine optimization by balancing the specific design requirements as described, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05IIA, routine optimization. Further, changes in size/proportion are obvious per MPEP 2144.04 IV,A. Therefore, the prior art meets claim 6.
Regarding Claims 7-8, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1. Davey does not explicitly teach the relational height between the height of the core box and the height of the battery pack; however, the skilled artisan would expect Figs. 39B/C, 40 and others indicate the general relationship that height of the core box 1264 is more than 50 % (claim 7) and 55% (claim 8) of the height the battery pack. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at this size relationship from the prior art of Davey and to further refine the range through routine experimentation as a design choice related to the requirements of the battery pack. Generally, it would be expected that for an application requiring higher power, a larger and potentially higher core box would be required due to larger battery cells or more battery cells being required as compared to an application requiring less power/capacity. Also, it would be expected that an application’s safety and performance needs would result in varying size requirements inside the battery pack and outside of the core box, such as ventilation, sensors, and other electrical components. Further, the maximum height of the battery pack would be specific to geometric requirements for the application (a vehicle would have different size requirements from a handheld device). Thus, the relational height would be a result-effective variable, depending on the application, where if the height of the core box relative to the size of the battery pack is too high there may not be enough space for the required safety and performance features and if the height of the core box relative to the size of the battery pack is too low, there may not be enough energy density to achieve the required power output/capacity. Determining the workable relationship between the height of the core box and the height of the battery pack can be determined through routine optimization for the specific design, application, and use environment by balancing the space requirements, geometrical design requirements, and performance/safety requirements, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05IIA, routine optimization. Further, changes in size/proportion are obvious per MPEP 2144.04 IV,A. Therefore, the prior art meets claims 7-8.
Regarding Claims 9-10, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1, Davey does not explicitly teach the relational height between the stack of pouch cells and the height of the battery pack; however, the skilled artisan would expect Figs. 39B/C, 40 and others indicate the general relationship that height of the stack of pouch cells (cells 1210, 1220,1230,1240,1250, with the resilient layers 1260a-1260f) is more than 30 % (claim 9) and 40% (claim 10) of the height the battery pack. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at this size relationship from the prior art of Davey and to further refine the range by routine experimentation as a design choice related to the requirements of the battery pack. Generally, it would be expected that for an application requiring higher power, larger battery cells or more battery cells are required than for an application requiring less power/capacity. Also, it would be expected that an application’s safety and performance needs would result in varying size requirements inside the battery pack and outside of the core box, such as ventilation, sensors, and other electrical components. Further, the maximum height of the battery pack would be specific to geometric requirements for the application (a vehicle would have different size requirements from a handheld device). Thus, the relational height would be a result-effective variable, depending on the application, where if the height of the stack of pouch cells relative to the size of the battery pack is too high there may not be enough space for the required safety and performance features in the battery pack and if the height of the stack of pouch cells relative to the size of the battery pack is too low, there may not be enough energy density to achieve the required power output/capacity. Determining the workable relationship between the height of the stack of pouch cells and the height of the battery pack can be determined through routine optimization for the specific design, application, and use environment by balancing the space requirements, geometrical design requirements, and performance/safety requirements, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05IIA, routine optimization. Further, changes in size/proportion are obvious per MPEP 2144.04 IV,A. Therefore, the prior art meets claims 9-10.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the battery pack terminals extend in a direction toward a plane that is coplanar with the end plate [Davey Figs. 42A/B, 43-46 and others show this configuration, see annotated Fig. below for clarity on directional relationship with coplanar].
PNG
media_image4.png
387
507
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the cell tabs are folded against the end plate [Davey 0269 and throughout, Figs. 42A/B, 51-54, and Figs. 76 show prior to folding, Figs. 77-79 after folding].
Alternative rejection of claim 6:
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Musetti, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Skeeks et al. [US20190044110A1], hereinafter Skeeks.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1 but does not disclose the battery pack height. Davey does not explicitly teach the height of the battery pack; however, the skilled artisan would know that the height of the battery pack would be a design choice related to the specific application and would further be a result effective variable. If the battery pack height is too large, it may be not meet the geometric requirements of the application. If the battery pack height is too small, it may not be large enough to house a battery that is sized for the required power/capacity or any necessary electronics or other features such as ventilation for safety and performance. Determining the workable height would be determined through routine optimization by balancing the specific design requirements as described, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05IIA, routine optimization. Further, changes in size/proportion are obvious per MPEP 2144.04 IV,A.
Alternatively, for purpose of compact prosecution:
Skeeks discloses a battery pack wherein the battery pack has a height between 85mm and 75mm [Skeeks 0239, Fig. 48, Skeeks discloses a battery pack 18A with a height 642 shown in Fig. 47 is 75 mm to 85 mm, which anticipates the claimed range.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Skeeks’ teachings about battery pack height with Davey’s battery pack for the predictable result of a battery pack with a height for the application of a power supply for a power device [Skeeks abstract, 0239]. Further, changes in size/proportion are obvious per MPEP 2144.04 IV,A.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Musetti, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sauerteig et al [US20200358060A1, as provided on the IDS dated 2/18/2025], hereinafter Sauerteig.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1 but is silent to wherein the housing includes an air inlet and an air outlet, a cooling airflow path extends from the air inlet to the air outlet, and the cooling airflow path extends between the core box and the housing. Sauerteig teaches a battery pack 1 with an air cooling circuit 90 in a battery pack housing 80 which includes an air inlet [Sauerteig 0124, inlet 91], and air outlet [Sauerteig 0124, Figs. 13-14, outlet 92], a cooling airflow path extends from the air inlet to the air outlet [Sauerteig 0124, Figs. 13-14, path LS], and the cooling airflow path extends between the core box and the housing [Sauerteig 0124, Figs. 13-14, path LS extends through the inlets 91 in housing 80 through the stack housing 10 (core box) to the outlet in housing 80]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Sauerteig’s teachings about an air cooling circuit 90 in Davey’s battery by providing inlet and outlet holes in Davey’s battery housing and core box. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sauerteig’s teachings with Davey’s battery pack as described for the predicted result of a cooling circuit [Sauerteig 0124] to prevent overheating of the battery pack, which would thereby affect performance.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Musetti, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Osborne et al [US20150380697A1, as provided on the IDS dated 2/18/2025], hereinafter Osborne.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Davey discloses battery pack of claim 1 but does not disclose mounting type between the core box and the end plate. Osborne discloses snap fitting for coupling various parts of a battery pack [Osborne throughout] including wherein the core box is snap fitted to the end plate [Osborne 0173, Figs. 64, snap fitting between the end plate 302 and the core box 260]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Osborne’s teaching to Davey’s battery pack by including snap fitting engagement features on each of the core box and end plate as an art recognized type of coupling for mounting a core box to an end plate. See MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Davey and Osborne as described for the predicted result of a battery pack with an end plate mounted to the core box [Osborne 0273].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Musetti, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Dawley et al [US20200275555A1], hereinafter Dawley.
Regarding claim 15, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 1 where the circuit board 1266 is mounted to core box 1264 through board support wall 1265 [Davey 0288] but does not disclose the mounting type. Dawley teaches wherein the core box is snap fitted to the circuit board [Dawley 0061, Figs. 1-4, Dawley teaches mounting a circuit board 140 to the lid 28 for a battery holder.]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Dawley’s teaching to Davey’s battery pack by including snap fitting engagement features on each of the circuit board 1266 and core box 1264 using support wall 1265 as a snap-fitting element as an art recognized type of coupling for mounting a core box to circuit board. See MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Davey and Dawley as described for the predicted result of a battery pack with a circuit board secured to the core box [Dawley 0061].
Claim(s) 16-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey et al. [US20220115714A1, as provided on the IDS dated 2/18/2025], hereinafter Davey, in view of Fauteux et al. [US20160141728A1, as provided on the IDS dated 2/18/2025], hereinafter Fauteux.
Regarding Claim 16, Davey discloses a battery pack comprising:
a housing [Davey 0218 and throughout, Figs. 33-84, housing 1102/1104];
an enclosure disposed in the housing [Davey 0248-0249, 254 and throughout, Figs. 45-83, The Examiner has referenced the instant specification for any special definition for enclosure and there is no recitation of an enclosure in the instant specification. Per Merriam-Webster online dictionary an enclosure means something that encloses. Encloses means to close in or surround. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an enclosure as it applies to Davey’s teaching is any something that closes in or surrounds another thing. In Davey, the enclosure is interpreted as holder 1264a/b with support surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a/b, circuit boards 1268 and 1266 since as combined this enclosure surrounds and closes in the stack of battery cell pouches as described below.], the enclosure including [Davey, as described below, the parts as combined would be considered to form an enclosure.]
a core box disposed in the housing, the core box forming four walls of the enclosure [Davey 0248-0249, 254 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, core box is 1264a/b with 1260f. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Davey is the core box forms six walls of the enclosure, which includes the claimed four walls, thus the limitation is met. ];
an end plate coupled to the core box, the end plate forming a first wall of the enclosure [See 112b rejection and interpretation. Davey 0226-0227, 0269, 0277, Figs. 46, 51-54 and throughout, The end plate is PCB 1268 coupled to 1264a through (at minimum) the folded over pouch cell tabs and/or physical contact. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Davey is that PCB1268 as coupled with the portion of 1264a with slots 1284 forms a first wall of the enclosure described above.], and having slots defined therein [Davey 0269, 0277, Figs. 51, 71, and others and throughout, slots 1292],
a circuit board coupled to the core box, the circuit board forming a second wall of the enclosure [See 112b rejection and interpretation. Davey 0226-0257, 0330 Figs. 45-46, 76 and throughout, circuit board 1266 coupled through 1265. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited Figs. of Davey is that the upper portion of 1264a/b, 1265, and 1266, which are coupled together, form a second wall of the enclosure as defined above since 1264a/b, 1265, and 1266 combined with the core box as described above and the end plate as described above surround/close in the plurality of battery cell pouches in Davey’s battery pack as described below.], and
a stack of pouch cells disposed in the enclosure, each pouch cell including cell tabs coupled to cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells and extending through slots of the end plate [Davey 0221-0250, 0269-0271 0289, 0300, 0320, 0328 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, 51, 61-70, 76 Stack of pouch cells is pouches 1210, 1220, 1230, 1240, 1250 with tabs 1216a and b, 1226a and b, 1236a and b, 1246a and b, and 1256a and b, respectively, within 1264a/b, 1265, 1266, 1268, 1260f. The tabs extend through slots 1292 [0320 and throughout].], the pouch cells electrically connected in series such that an electrical pathway through the pouch cells is a serpentine pattern [Davey 0247, 0269-0271, 0328 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, 51, 61-70, 76 Davey teaches the electrical connections in series forming an electrical pathway through the pouch cells in a serpentine pattern, which is best shown in Fig. 51. For clarity, the serpentine pattern is indicated in modified Fig. 51 below.].
Davey does not disclose at least a portion of a cell tab is disposed on a side of the circuit board that is opposite that of the core box. Instead, Davey connects the electrical pathway of the battery cells to the side of the circuit board opposite the core box with connector members 1306 a and b [Davey 0284-0286 and throughout, Fig. 54] .
PNG
media_image5.png
317
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 51, modified to show serpentine electrical pathway
Fauteux discloses the a battery pack [Fauteux throughout] with at least a portion of a cell tab is disposed on a side of the circuit board that is opposite that of the core box [Fauteux 0030, Fig. 10, Cell tab 351 of the stack of cells 30 is folded back across the upper surface of circuit board 421 where it is connected to lead strap 54 and thereby to terminal 53 on circuit board 421. Fauteux’s embodiment [0030] teaches enclosure cover 421 can be an integrated circuit board, and thus reads on the claimed configuration.]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to combine Fauteux’s teaching through minor modifications of elongating and connecting Davey’s upper cell tab 1216b to connector member 1306b positioned on the upper portion of circuit board 1266, as taught by Fauteux, instead of connecting the lead strap 1306b on the end plate side of the core box. See MPEP 2144.04 VI, C, rearrangement of parts, which would be an obvious modification to Davey’s battery pack in view of Fauteux’s teachings. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Fauteux’s teachings about connecting the upper cell tab to the upper side of the circuit board with Davey’s battery pack for the predictable result of a battery pack with electrical connection on the upper surface of the circuit board as needed for the battery pack’s design requirements, manufacturing simplification, or to space the connection away from the battery cells. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, modified Davey discloses battery pack of claim 16, further comprising a bus bar disposed over a portion of the end plate [Davey 0279-0286, 0321-0331,and throughout Figs. 52-53 and others, busbar is metallic pads 1304, fuse 1305, and connector 1306 which are all disposed over a portion of end plate 1268], the bus bar coupled to a cell tab of a farthest pouch cell from the circuit board of the stack of pouch cells [Davey Fig. 52, Metallic pad 1304a connects to cell tab 1256a, which is the cell tab of pouch 1250 furthest from circuit board 1266, which is coupled to fuse 1305, which is coupled to connector 1306a.].
Regarding claim 18, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 17, wherein the bus bar extends along the end plate, bends over an edge of the circuit board, and is coupled to the side of the circuit board that is opposite that of the core box [Davey 0279-0286 0321-0331,and throughout, Figs. 52-53, Metallic pads 1304, fuse 1305, and connector 1306a extend along the left side of end plate 1268, 1306 bend over the edge of circuit board 1266 and couples to the circuit board 1266 on the upper side.].
Regarding Claim 19, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 17, further comprising an insulative frame disposed between the bus bar and the end plate [Davey 0226 and throughout, Davey’s end plate 1268 is a printed circuit board, which would inherently require the surface to be insulative otherwise it cannot function as a circuit board. Therefore, Davey’s battery pack inherently includes an insulative frame (the surface of the circuit board facing the bus bar) between the bus bar and end plate. See MPEP 2112, there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Further, if Davey’s end plate were made of metal instead of a circuit board material, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide insulation between the end plate and the bus bar to prevent electrical shorting or shock.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 16, further comprising a voltage tap, the voltage tap electrically connected to the circuit board and two coupled cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells [Davey 0233-0235, Davey discloses circuit board 1266 monitors and controls the pouch cells in the battery pack through communication with voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors. Davey’s voltage sensors for each battery cell reads on the claimed voltage tap electrically connected to the circuit board and two coupled cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells. Fauteux 0031, Fauteux further teaches voltage sensors reading on the claimed voltage taps, which would be obvious to combine for the predictable result of controlling and monitoring voltage in the battery pack. ]
Regarding Claim 22, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 16, wherein the circuit board includes a first circuit board [ Davey 0226, first circuit board 1266, Figs. 39B/C], the battery pack includes a second circuit board [ Davey 0226, second circuit board 1030, Figs. 39B/C], and the second circuit board is electrically connected to the first circuit board [Davey 0226, second circuit board 1030, Figs. 39B/C]. Davey’s circuit board 1030 is disposed on the side of a third circuit board 1268, which also provides the function of being the end plate, where the side it is disposed upon the side of the third circuit board 1266 that is opposite that of the core box 1264. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the skilled artisan with general skill in electronics to locate Davey’s circuit board 1030 to be disposed on the side of the first circuit board 1266 as a matter of design choice without affecting the function of the circuit board. Such modification is obvious per MPEP 2144.04 I, aesthetic design changes, MPEP 2144.04 VI, C, rearrangement of parts. Further, such modification would permit reduction of the footprint of the battery module by permitting a reduction in length.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Ju et al. [US20190020012A1], hereinafter Ju.
Regarding Claim 24, Davey discloses a battery pack comprising:
a housing [Davey 0218 and throughout, Figs. 33-84, housing 1102/1104];
an enclosure [The Examiner has referenced the instant specification for recitations of the claimed enclosure to determine if there is a special meaning of the limitation. No recitation of an enclosure is included in the instant specification. Per Merriam-Webster online dictionary an enclosure means something that encloses. Encloses means to close in or surround. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an enclosure as it applies to Davey’s teaching is any something that closes in or surrounds another thing. In Davey, the enclosure is interpreted as holder 1264a/b with support surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a/b, circuit boards 1268 and 1266 since as combined this enclosure surrounds and closes in the stack of battery cell pouches as described below.] disposed in the housing [Davey 0248-0249, 254 and throughout, Figs. 45-83 core enclosure is holder 1264a/b with support surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a/b, endplate/circuit boards 1268 and 1266.], the enclosure including [Davey, as described below the parts as combined would be considered to form an enclosure.]
a core box [Davey 0248-0249, 254 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, core box is 1264 with bottom surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a and b ],
an end plate coupled to the core box [Davey 0226-0227, 0269, 0277, Figs. 46, 51-54 and throughout, end plate is PCB 1268 coupled to 1264 through (at minimum) the folded over pouch cell tabs and/or physical contact], the end plate having slots defined therein [Davey 0269, 0277, Figs. 51, 71 and others and throughout, slots 1292],
a first circuit board coupled to the core box [Davey 0226-0230, 0253 and throughout, Figs. 46-50 and others, Fig. 46 (an others) shows circuit board 1030 coupled to core box portion 1264a through 1268.],
a stack of pouch cells disposed in the enclosure [Davey 0221-0250, 0269-0271 0289, 0300, 0328 and throughout, Figs. 45-46 and others show a stack of pouch cells 1210, 1220, 1230, 1240, 1250 within the enclosure which includes the core box, end plate, and first circuit board as described above.] and electrically connected to the first circuit board [Davey 0226-0230 and throughout, circuit board 1030 electrically connected to the stack of pouch cells through 1268, Fig. 42A, 43 and others],
each pouch cell including cell tabs coupled to cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells and extending through the slots of the end plate [Davey 0221-0250, 0269-0271 0289, 0300, 0320, 0328 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, 51, 61-70, 76 Stack of pouch cells is pouches 1210, 1220, 1230, 1240, 1250 with tabs 1216a and b, 1226a and b, 1236a and b, 1246a and b, and 1256a and b, respectively, within 1264a/b, 1265, 1266, 1268, 1260f. The tabs extend through slots 1292 in end plate 1268 [0320 and throughout].],
the pouch cells electrically connected in series such that an electrical pathway through the pouch cells is a serpentine pattern [Davey 0221-0250, 0269-0271 0289, 0300, 0328 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, 51, 61-70, 76 with pouches 1210, 1220, 1230, 1240, 1250 with tabs 1216a and b, 1226a and b, 1236a and b, 1246a and b, and 1256a and b, respectively. [0247, 0269-0271, 0328] describes the electrical connections in series forming an electrical pathway through the pouch cells in a serpentine pattern, which is best shown in Fig. 51. For clarity, the serpentine pattern is indicated in modified Fig. 51 below.];
a resilient layer disposed between adjacent pouch cells of the stack of pouch cells [Davey 0255, Figs. 45-46, insulating layers 1260b-1260e];
battery pack terminals electrically connected to the stack of pouch cells, the battery pack terminals configured to electrically connect to an electrical device [Davey 0220 and throughout, Figs. 41-46, battery pack terminals 1276 for connection to power tool terminals 1024];
a second circuit board electrically connected to the battery pack terminals [Davey 0232 and throughout, circuit board 1266 electrically connected to terminals 1276, Fig. 42A, 43 and others];
a voltage tap electrically connected to at least one of the first circuit board and the second circuit board and to two coupled cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells [Davey 0233-0235, Davey discloses circuit board 1266 monitors and controls the pouch cells in the battery pack through communication with voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors. Davey’s voltage sensors for each battery cell reads on the claimed voltage tap electrically connected to the second circuit board and two coupled cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells.]; and
a temperature sensor electrically connected to one of the first circuit board and the second circuit board [Davey 0233-0235, Davey discloses circuit board 1266 monitors and controls the pouch cells in the battery pack through communication with voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors. Davey’s temperature sensors for each battery cell would perform the same function as a thermistor, though Davey does not explicitly disclose a thermistor as the type of sensor.].
Ju discloses a thermistor electrically connected to a circuit board [Ju 0006, 0060-0063 and throughout, thermistor 144 connected to PCB 10]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Ju’s teachings to Davey’s battery pack by using a thermistor for Davey’s temperature sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ju with Davey for the predictable result of battery pack with a temperature sensor to check and control the operation condition in real time or at regular time intervals [Ju 0006].
PNG
media_image5.png
317
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For purpose of compact prosecution, alternative rejection for claim 19:
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Fauteux, as provided for claims 16 and 17, in further view of In et al. [US20230043832A1, as provided on the IDS dated 2/18/2025], hereinafter In.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 17, further comprising an insulative frame disposed between the bus bar and the end plate [Davey 0226 and throughout, Davey’s end plate 1268 is a printed circuit board, which would inherently require the surface to be insulative otherwise it cannot function as a circuit board. Therefore, Davey’s battery pack inherently includes an insulative frame (the surface of the circuit board facing the bus bar) between the bus bar and end plate. See MPEP 2112, there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Further, if Davey’s end plate were made of metal instead of a circuit board material, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide insulation between the end plate and the bus bar to prevent electrical shorting.
For purpose of compact prosecution, In discloses a battery pack with and insulating frame 500 inserted between the busbar 400 and the end plate 300 [In 0045, Fig. 3]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply In’s teachings in modified Davey’s battery pack it Davey’s end plate was not made of an insulative material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine In’s teachings with modified Davey’s battery pack for the predictable result of prevention of unintended electrical conduction [In 0045].
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view Fauteux, as provided for claim 16, in further view of Ju et al. [US20190020012A1], hereinafter Ju.
For purpose of compact prosecution, alternative rejection for claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 16, further comprising a voltage tap, the voltage tap electrically connected to the circuit board and two coupled cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells [Davey 0233-0235, Davey discloses circuit board 1266 monitors and controls the pouch cells in the battery pack through communication with voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors. Davey’s voltage sensors for each battery cell reads on the claimed voltage tap electrically connected to the circuit board and two coupled cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells.].
For purpose of compact prosecution, Ju discloses voltage taps connected to a circuit board for monitoring and controlling the voltage of battery cells [Ju 0006, 0068-0079 and throughout, contact part 330 connected to voltage sensing terminal 442 and circuit board 324]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Ju’s teachings to modified Davey’s battery pack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ju with Davey for the predictable result of battery pack with a voltage sensor to check and control the operation condition in real time or at regular time intervals [Ju 0006].
Regarding Claim 21, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 16, further comprising a temperature sensor electrically connected to the circuit board [Davey 0233-0235, Davey discloses circuit board 1266 monitors and controls the pouch cells in the battery pack through communication with voltage sensors, current sensors, and temperature sensors. Davey’s temperature sensors for each battery cell would perform the same function as a thermistor, though Davey does not explicitly disclose a thermistor as the type of sensor.]
Ju discloses a thermistor electrically connected to a circuit board [Ju 0006, 0060-0063 and throughout, thermistor 144 connected to PCB 10]. It would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to apply Ju’s teachings to Davey’s battery pack by using a thermistor for Davey’s temperature sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ju with Davey for the predictable result of battery pack with a temperature sensor to check and control the operation condition in real time or at regular time intervals [Ju 0006].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey in view of Fauteux, as provided for claims 16 and 17, in further view of Dinkelman [U20160193694A1].
Regarding claim 23, modified Davey discloses the battery pack of claim 16, wherein the cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells are welded together [Davey 0200, 0329, Davey teaches welding as a method for coupling tabs [0200] and further discloses folded cell tabs are coupled to metallic pads through welding [0329] but Davey is silent to the shape of the weld. Dinkelman discloses oscillation welding for a battery pack [0011, 0062, Fig. 9]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Dinkelman’s oscillation welding with modified Davey’s battery pack for welding the cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells together for the predicted result of uniform welds with good tensile strength [Dinkelman 0062-0063].
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s Response, the Examiner agrees with Applicant arguments on pg. 7 that the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections provided in the Office Action dated 2/12/2026 are overcome by Applicant amendments and thus those objections/ rejections are withdrawn as discussed above. However, see new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections provided above. Regarding arguments on pgs. 7-8 about the anticipation rejections for claims 1-3 and 11-12 over Davey, the Examiner agrees those amendments are sufficient to overcome the anticipation rejections. Due to the obviousness of modifying Davey as claimed, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Davey in view of Musetti are provided for claims 1-12 as described above. Further, obviousness-type rejections over Davey in view of Musetti and Sauerteig are provided for claim 13, over Davey in view of Musetti and Osbourne are provided for claim 14, and over Davey in view of Musetti and Dawley are provided for claim 15.
Regarding Applicant arguments on pg. 9 that Davey and other cited references do not teach or suggestion an enclosure having the stack of pouch cells disposed therein, where the enclosure has a core box, an end plate, and a circuit board forming walls of the enclosure, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has referenced the instant specification for recitations of the claimed enclosure to determine if there is a special meaning of the limitation “enclosure”. No recitation of an enclosure is included in the instant specification. Per Merriam-Webster online dictionary an enclosure means something that encloses. Encloses means to close in or surround. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an enclosure as it applies to Davey’s teaching is any something that closes in or surrounds another thing. In Davey, the enclosure is interpreted as holder 1264a/b with support surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a/b, end plate 1268, and circuit board 1266 since as combined this enclosure surrounds and closes in the stack of battery cell pouches as described throughout Davey.
The Applicant argues on pg. 3 that Davey’s cell holder 1264 forms an enclosure on its own and 1266 and 1268 are disposed outside of holder 1264 and do not contribute the enclosure of the battery cells. Further, the Applicant provides arguments regarding distance/placement of 1266 and 1268 with respect to core box 1264. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument (in summary) describing that only portions directly facing an object being enclosed form an enclosure of that object. As provided above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an enclosure is anything that surrounds or closes in something else is an enclosure. Thus, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the argued parts 1266 and 1268 should not be considered part of the enclosure as they are physical coupled to the core box 1264 to provide enclosure of the battery stack as required for the invention.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pgs. 9-10 regarding the rejection of claim 24, as provided above, Davey’s invention reads on the claimed enclosure. The arguments for claim 24 are essentially the same as the arguments regarding Davey’s enclosure for claim 16; thus, the Examiner’s position is the same as provided above.
Further for purpose of compact prosecution, though it is not required for claim 16 or claim 24 as recited, the Applicant is claiming specific design elements of a battery pack “enclosure”. Davey teaches the claimed core box, end plate, and circuit board in the same locations as the instantly claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Davey by omitting any of the portions of core box 1264 between PCB 1266 and end plate 1268 and the battery cells that are deemed not necessary for the specific design requirements per MPEP 2144.04 I and II. Thus, modifying Davey’s enclosure as described would include the remaining portions of core box 1264, end plate 1268, and circuit board 1266, which would still be considered to be an enclosure for the battery cells.
For these reasons, evidence of obviousness outweigh any evidence of novelty and nonobviousness of the claimed invention.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights