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(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further elects species A relating to claims 1-20 through the telephone call dated 3/4/2026 as was authorized by Joseph Sauer.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a fist surface” should read “a first surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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 the limitation "the metal plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 5 depends upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (US 2016/0301045 A1) in view of Digianantonio et al. (US 2021/0381876 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tyler discloses a battery configured to have improved stability, the battery comprising: a battery pack construction including ([0001-0003] battery modules in battery packs):
A first battery cell having a top surface and a bottom surface (Figure 3 battery cells 52 having a plurality of surfaces);
A second battery cell having a top surface and a bottom surface (Figure 3 battery cells 52 having a plurality of surfaces); and
A battery cell spacer having a first surface contacting substantially all of the bottom surface of the first battery cell and a second surface contacting substantially all of the top surface of the second battery cell, wherein the first and the second surfaces each include an adhesive component (Figure 3; double sided adhesive sheets 50 are placed between adjacent battery cell stacks and thus the adhesive sheets can be placed between the top and bottom side surface of the battery cells to adhere the first and second side surfaces together; the side surfaces containing the adhesive sheets 50 are read as the top and bottom surfaces as they can be a top and bottom surface in the stacking direction);
A battery management system in electrical communication with the first and second battery cell (Figure 3; lid 64 being a bus bar carrier configured to facilitate an electrical connection between the battery cells; [0038]);
A battery housing enclosing the battery pack construction and the BMS (Figure 3 cover and housing 70 enclosing the battery cells and bus bar carrier/lid 64);
A thermal epoxy contacting the battery housing (Figure 3; [0047-0049] thermal epoxy layers positioned between the ends of battery cells and the housing).
While Tyler is silent with respect to the thermal epoxy contacting the BMS the thermal epoxy layer is used to dissipate thermal energy out of the battery module ([0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the thermal epoxy layers such that at least one thermal epoxy layer is provided on the bus bar carrier to couple the bus bar carrier to the cover 72 and provide a layer in which thermal energy can be dissipated or to be exhausted outside of the battery module. The resulting modification would also render obvious the limitation in which the BMS having one or more thermal components configured to disperse heat from the BMS as the bus bar carrier is electrically conductive which would move and disperse heat and thus through the modification would disperse heat towards the thermal epoxy layer. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Tyler is further silent with respect to a stability cage at least partially enclosing the battery pack construction and positioned between the battery cells and the battery housing, the stability cage including: a polymer frame having four sidewalls positioned in a rectangular form, wherein each sidewall includes a plurality of apertures forming a mesh pattern.
Digianantonio discloses a device storing material that can be used for a battery pack and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to device storing containers such as batteries. Digianantonio discloses wherein a battery pack can be used and can held within a container ([0046, 0071,0076]) wherein the contains has support 16 and a mesh cage structure 17 for receiving, protecting, and mechanically reinforcing the container and can be made of a polymer material ([0071] Figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the polymer mesh cage structure taught by Digianantonio within the housing of Tyler such that the battery cells of Tyler are provided within the polymer mesh cage taught by Digianantonio to provide a region for receiving, protecting and mechanically reinforcing the battery housing of Tyler. The resulting structure would read on the stability cage partially enclosing the battery pack having a polymer frame having a mesh pattern.
Regarding claim 3, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tyler further discloses wherein the one or more thermal components in contact with the thermal epoxy includes a metal plate, wherein the metal plate is in contact with an electrical component configured to generate heat when subjected to an electric current ([0023] lid/ bus bar carrier includes bus bars and other electrical components to electrically connect with the battery cells and the bus bar carrier/lid reads as the metal plate Figure 3; [0041] housing can be a metallic material and is electrically conductive).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Digianantonio further discloses wherein the stability cage further includes an attachment mechanism configured to connect the stability cage to the battery housing (Digianantonio [0046] the battery housing can be fixed or even integrated to the support). Tyler further teaches wherein the battery housing enclosing the battery frame and the plurality of battery cells (Tyler Figure 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (US 2016/0301045 A1) in view of Digianantonio et al. (US 2021/0381876 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20240057657 A having priority date of 10/25/2022- US Equivalent US 2025/0132446 A1 used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tyler is silent with respect to wherein the thermal epoxy has a shore hardness A or at least 70.
Kim discloses a battery pack and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Kim discloses wherein a base resin material that can be made of epoxy or urethane is used for the purpose of securing rigidity ([0063]) and wherein the base resin has a Shore hardness A of 80 or more for providing mechanical rigidity to the battery pack and to sufficiently support and secure the battery elements ([0062-0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the epoxy material of Tyler to have a Shore hardness A of 80 or more to provide mechanical rigidity to the battery pack and to sufficiently support and secure the battery elements within the housing as taught by Kim. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 2.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (US 2016/0301045 A1) in view of Digianantonio et al. (US 2021/0381876 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0063469 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 3. Tyler is silent with respect to the BMS comprising a MOSFET in electrical communication with the metal plates of the BMS and thermal epoxy.
Xu discloses a battery pack and electrical device and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Xu discloses wherein a battery management system has a MOS transistor within the battery pack that is used as a conductive component within the battery management system ([0035,0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the bus bar carrier of Tyler for the BMS that includes a MOS transistor in a battery pack as a conductive component of the bus bar carrier as taught by Xu as a known and conventional component of a battery pack. The resulting modification can include the MOSFET in electrical communication with the metal plates of the battery management system. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tyler is silent with respect to wherein the metal plate is a copper plate for the conductive components that is connected to the battery cells.
Xu discloses a battery pack and electrical device and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Xu discloses wherein a conductive component can be a metal material such as copper ([0042]) as copper is a known conductive material used within battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to use a copper plate for the metal plate/bus bar carrier as taught by Xu as a copper plate is a known electrically conductive material used within batteries and would have ben expected to function similarly with reasonable expectation of success. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (US 2016/0301045 A1) in view of Digianantonio et al. (US 2021/0381876 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2014/0093750 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Tyler is silent with respect to wherein a first layer of adhesive tape enclosing the first and second battery cells, and the battery cell spacer wherein the adhesive tape contacts substantially all of the top surface of the first battery cell.
Yang discloses a battery cell and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Yang discloses wherein a battery cell and circuit board are wrapped in an adhesive tape, such that the adhesive tape covers all but a small part of a conductor element that is electrically conductive to seal and connect the battery elements within the casing ([0021] claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the adhesive tape of Yang to wrap around the battery cells and spacer elements and substantially covers all of the top surface of the first battery cell in order to physically connect and couple the battery cells together within the housing and increase the durability of the battery.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (US 2016/0301045 A1) in view of Digianantonio et al. (US 2021/0381876 A1) and Yang et al. (US 2014/0093750 A1) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Falk et al. (US 2022/0294068 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 6. Tyler is silent with respect to a first protective plate contacting the first adhesive tape layer in line with the top surface of the first battery cell.
Falk discloses a battery module and housing and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Falk discloses wherein the battery includes a protective plate that is arranged on the outer face of the battery cell to protect the battery cell against damages when the battery is inserted into the housing or if the battery expands during use (Abstract; [0008], [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to provide a protective plate as taught by Falk into the battery of modified Tyler such that the protective plate contacts the first adhesive tape layer in line with the top surface of the first battery cell to provide protection to the battery cells and prevent damages from happening within the battery housing as taught by Falk. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Tyler is silent with respect to wherein a second layer of adhesive tape enclosing the first and second battery cells, the battery cell spacer, the first layer of adhesive tape and the first protective plate wherein the adhesive tape contacts substantially all of the top surface of the first protective plate.
Yang discloses a battery cell and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Yang discloses wherein a battery cell and circuit board are wrapped in an adhesive tape, such that the adhesive tape covers all but a small part of a conductor element that is electrically conductive to seal and connect the battery elements within the casing ([0021] claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the adhesive tape of Yang to wrap around the battery cells, spacer elements and protective plate and substantially covers all of the top surface of the first protective plate in order to physically connect and couple the battery cells and protective plates together within the housing and increase the durability of the battery. Yang can be used to provide a second adhesive tape to cover the protective plate that was added through the modification of claim 7 and thus would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 8.
Claims 10-11, and 13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (US 2016/0301045 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tyler discloses a battery configured to have improved stability, the battery comprising ([0001-0003] battery modules in battery packs):
A battery management system in electrical communication with a plurality of battery cells (Figure 3; lid 64 being a bus bar carrier configured to facilitate an electrical connection between the battery cells; [0038]; Figure 3 battery cells 52);
A battery housing enclosing the battery cells and the BMS (Figure 3 cover and housing 70 enclosing the battery cells and bus bar carrier/lid 64);
A thermal epoxy contacting the battery housing (Figure 3; [0047-0049] thermal epoxy layers positioned between the ends of battery cells and the housing).
While Tyler is silent with respect to the thermal epoxy contacting the BMS the thermal epoxy layer is used to dissipate thermal energy out of the battery module ([0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the thermal epoxy layers such that at least one thermal epoxy layer is provided on the bus bar carrier to couple the bus bar carrier to the cover 72 and provide a layer in which thermal energy can be dissipated or to be exhausted outside of the battery module. The resulting modification would also render obvious the limitation in which the BMS having one or more thermal components configured to disperse heat from the BMS as the bus bar carrier is electrically conductive which would move and disperse heat and thus through the modification would disperse heat towards the thermal epoxy layer. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tyler further discloses wherein the one or more thermal components in contact with the thermal epoxy include an electrical component configured to generate heat when subjected to an electric current ([0023] lid/ bus bar carrier includes bus bars and other electrical components to electrically connect with the battery cells; [0041] housing can be a metallic material and is electrically conductive).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tyler further discloses wherein the one or more thermal components in contact with the thermal epoxy includes a metal plate, wherein the metal plate is in contact with an electrical component configured to generate heat when subjected to an electric current ([0023] lid/ bus bar carrier includes bus bars and other electrical components to electrically connect with the battery cells and the bus bar carrier/lid reads as the metal plate Figure 3; [0041] housing can be a metallic material and is electrically conductive).
Regarding claim 17, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tyler further discloses wherein the thermal epoxy is positioned between the battery housing and a first surface of the one or more thermal components without extending in a lateral direction beyond the first surface of the one or more thermal components (Figure 3, see modification of claim 10 as the thermal epoxy can be positioned between the bus bar carrier and the housing and would not extend beyond a lateral surface of the thermal components).
Regarding claim 18, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tyler is silent with respect to wherein the thermal epoxy extends beyond a first surface of the one or more thermal components in a lateral direction along the surface of the battery housing, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the thermal epoxy layer such that the thermal epoxy layer extends beyond a first surface of the one or more thermal components in a lateral direction along the surface of the battery housing as a simple change in size of the thermal epoxy layer. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 19, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tyler further discloses wherein the thermal epoxy contacts the battery housing, see modification of claim 10 as the thermal epoxy layer can be placed between the bus bar carrier and the housing to contact the housing.
Regarding claim 20, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tyler further discloses wherein the plurality of battery cells are lithium ion battery cells ([0022] battery cells can be lithium ion battery cells).
Claims 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler et al. (US 2016/0301045 A1) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0063469 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Tyler is silent with respect to the BMS comprising a MOSFET.
Xu discloses a battery pack and electrical device and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Xu discloses wherein a battery management system has a MOS transistor within the battery pack that is used as a conductive component within the battery management system ([0035,0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the bus bar carrier of Tyler for the BMS that includes a MOS transistor in a battery pack as a conductive component of the bus bar carrier as taught by Xu as a known and conventional component of a battery pack. The resulting modification can include the MOSFET in electrical communication with the metal plates of the battery management system. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 13. Tyler is silent with respect to the BMS comprising a MOSFET in electrical communication with the metal plates of the BMS and thermal epoxy.
Xu discloses a battery pack and electrical device and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Xu discloses wherein a battery management system has a MOS transistor within the battery pack that is used as a conductive component within the battery management system ([0035,0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the bus bar carrier of Tyler for the BMS that includes a MOS transistor in a battery pack as a conductive component of the bus bar carrier as taught by Xu as a known and conventional component of a battery pack. The resulting modification can include the MOSFET in electrical communication with the metal plates of the battery management system. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Tyler is silent with respect to wherein the metal plate is a copper plate for the conductive components that is connected to the battery cells.
Xu discloses a battery pack and electrical device and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Xu discloses wherein a conductive component can be a metal material such as copper ([0042]) as copper is a known conductive material used within battery cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to use a copper plate for the metal plate/bus bar carrier as taught by Xu as a copper plate is a known electrically conductive material used within batteries and would have been expected to function similarly with reasonable expectation of success. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 16, modified Tyler discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Tyler discloses wherein the thermal epoxy is provided to be at least electrically connected to the battery cells and BMS/bus bar carrier. While it is unclear if the thermal epoxy is in direct contact or not with the electrical component configured to generate heat, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the thermal epoxy layer such that the thermal epoxy layer is not in direct contact with the electrical component configured to generate heat, rather in an indirect connection that maintains the thermal connectivity such that heat can be dissipated within the battery cell. The resulting modification is to form an indirect connection between the thermal epoxy and the heat generating electrical component as an alternative connection that would still dissipate heat generated within the battery cell. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwag et al. (US 2010/0143785 A1)-discloses a battery pack having an electrical insulation tape attached to upper surfaces of the secondary battery cells and a spacer structure 180 provided between adjacent battery cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728