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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. The IDS contains an extremely large number of references. To facilitate consideration of the IDS, the Examiner has considered all of the references, as indicated by a signature on pg. 229 of the IDS dated 02/18/2025, by combining the document identifier numbers with relevant search terms for the instant invention and/or imaging searching drawings in the references. Due to the large number of pages, the single signature/date on pg. 229 of the IDS dated 02/18/2025 indicates that all references were considered with the combined search method as described above.
Few of the references provided were found to be relevant to the instant invention. If the Applicant is aware of any prior art contained within the list of references that is pertinent to the Applicant’s instant invention, an official statement should be made in response to this Office Action. Further, the Applicant is reminded of the Applicant’s duty of disclosure. To facilitate compliance with disclosure, see MPEP 2004. Specifically, item 13, copied below for the Applicant’s convenience, provides best practices regarding long lists of documents:
13. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The Examiner also considered all of the references on the IDSs dated 5/23/2025 and 11/13/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 has a typographical error and should be corrected from “wherein the stack of pouch cells has a height that greater than is” to “wherein the stack of pouch cells has a height that is greater than”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 8, 10 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 5 recites in line 1 “the stack of pouch cells has a height that is greater than”. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, which also recites “the stack of pouch cells has a height that is greater than”. It is unclear if the same height is referenced or if a second height is claimed, which makes the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, claim 5 was examined as “the height of the stack of pouch cells is greater than”.
Claim 8 recites in line 1 “the core box has a height that is greater than”. Claim 8 depends on claim 7, which also recites “the core box has a height that is greater than”. It is unclear if the same height is referenced or if a second height is claimed, which makes the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, claim 8 was examined as “the height of the core box is greater than”.
Claim 10 recites in line 1 “the stack of pouch cells has a height that is greater than”. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, which also recites “the stack of pouch cells has a height that is greater than”. It is unclear if the same height is referenced or if a second height is claimed, which makes the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, claim 10 was examined as “the height of the stack of pouch cells is greater than”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davey et al. [US20220115714A1, as provided on the IDS dated 2/18/2025], hereinafter Davey.
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, core box is holder 1264 with support surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a/b, Figs. 45-46, see annotated Fig. below];
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 surfaces 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 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], the cell tabs extending through the slots [Davey 0269, 0277, Figs. 51, 71 and others, and throughout];
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, 0330 Figs. 45-46, 76 and throughout, circuit board 1266 coupled 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 1264 and support 1260f, 1264a/b with end plate 1268 and upper circuit board 1266 enclosing the pouch cells.].
PNG
media_image1.png
587
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, 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, 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 11, 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_image2.png
387
507
media_image2.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].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4 and 5, 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, 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, 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, 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.
Alternative rejection of claim 6:
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davey, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Skeeks et al. [US20190044110A1], hereinafter Skeeks.
Regarding Claim 6, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Dawley et al [US20200275555A1], hereinafter Dawley.
Regarding claim 15, 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 further 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];
a core box disposed in the housing [Davey 0248-0249, 254 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, core box is 1264 with bottom surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a and b ];
a stack of pouch cells disposed in the core box, each pouch cell including cell tabs coupled to cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells, 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.];
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], the cell tabs extending through the slots [Davey 0269, 0277, Figs. 51, 71, and others and throughout, slots 1292];
a circuit board coupled to the core box [Davey 0226-0257, 0330 Figs. 45-46, 76 and throughout, circuit board 1266 coupled through 1265], the stack of pouch cells at least partially enclosed by the circuit board and the core box [Davey Figs. 33-84, Particularity Figs. 40, 42-44, 54, 76, 77, 81, 83, 84 shows the stack enclosed on the upper side by the circuit board 1266, and the upper region and sides by holder 1264 with bottom surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a and b.].,
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_image3.png
317
538
media_image3.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];
a core box disposed in the housing [Davey 0248-0249, 254 and throughout, Figs. 45-46, core box is 1264 with bottom surfaces 1260f and lower portion of 1264a and b ];
a stack of pouch cells disposed in the core box, each pouch cell including cell tabs coupled to cell tabs of adjacent pouch cells, 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.];
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], the cell tabs extending through the slots [Davey 0269, 0277, Figs. 51, 71 and others and throughout, cell tabs extending through slots 1292];
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 first circuit board electrically connected to the stack of pouch cells [Davey 0226-0230 and throughout, circuit board 1030 electrically connected to the stack of pouch cells through 1268, Fig. 42A, 43 and others];
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
wherein the core box, the end plate, and the first 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 1264 and support 1260f, 1264a/b with end plate 1268 and upper circuit board 1266 enclosing the 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_image3.png
317
538
media_image3.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 of 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].
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 Mon-Fri 8:30-5 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
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724