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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braun (DE 10-2018-209817, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Braun discloses in Figs 1-3, a busbar assembly (ref 2) for a vehicle battery (ref 200) of an electric vehicle (ref 1000), comprising: at least two busbars (refs 3) arranged side by side (Fig 2) and configured for electrically contacting (Figs 1, 3, [0023]) at least one electrical component (Figs 1, 3, [0023]) of the vehicle battery (ref 200), wherein the busbars (refs 3) are surrounded by a plastics body ([0023], ref 6), and at least one fastening insert (ref 8) configured for fastening ([0036]) the plastics body ([0023], ref 6) to a structure (Figs 1, 3, [0036]) of the vehicle battery (ref 200), wherein the at least one fastening insert (ref 8) is embedded in ([0023], [0036], Fig 2) the plastics body ([0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plastics body is a foam body ([0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the fastening insert (ref 8) is configured to be received as an insert part (Fig 2, [0036], fitting between refs 6 and 8 depicted) in the plastics body ([0023], ref 6).
Regarding claim 12, Braun discloses in Figs 1-3, a vehicle battery (ref 200) for an electric vehicle (ref 1000), comprising a plurality of battery units ([0008], [0009], [0013], Fig 3) which are configured to be connected together ([0008], [0009], [0013], Fig 3), a plurality of battery modules (of refs 200) each comprising multiple battery cells (within ref 200), and a busbar assembly (ref 2) comprising: at least two busbars (refs 3) arranged side by side (Fig 2) and configured for electrically contacting (Figs 1, 3, [0023]) at least one electrical component (Figs 1, 3, [0023]) of the vehicle battery (ref 200), wherein the busbars (refs 3) are surrounded by a plastics body ([0023], ref 6), and at least one fastening insert (ref 8) configured for fastening ([0036]) the plastics body ([0023], ref 6) to a structure (Figs 1, 3, [0036]) of the vehicle battery (ref 200), wherein the at least one fastening insert (ref 8) is embedded in ([0023], [0036], Fig 2) the plastics body ([0023])
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-8, 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (DE 10-2018-209817, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Subramaniam et al. (US 2013/0043071).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 18 Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose at least one heat-conducting insert for dissipating heat from the plastics body configured to be embedded in the plastics body, configured as an insert part, configured as a metal sheet, and the busbars comprise copper, and the foam comprises polyurethane foam.
Subramaniam et al. discloses in Figs 1-21, a busbar assembly (refs 100, 500) comprising copper busbars ([0042], refs 104a, 104b) including metal sheet inserts (refs 112, Figs 3-4) inserted into a heat sink (ref 114) including a polyurethane foam (ref 120, [0034]) to dissipate heat ([0028]-[0031]) from the busbar structures (refs 100, 500). This configuration enhances the heat dissipation from the overall busbar structure ([0028]-[0031]).
Subramaniam et al. and Braun are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, electrical busbar assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the heat-conducting insert and polyurethane foam and copper material disclosed by Subramaniam et al. into the respective structures of the busbar assembly of Braun to enhance heat dissipation from the overall busbar structure.
Regarding claim 6, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plastics body ([0023]) extends substantially over the entire length ([0023], Fig 2) of the busbars (refs 3).
Regarding claim 7, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the busbars (refs 3) comprise sheet metal strips ([0019]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plastics body ([0023], ref 6) comprises a plastics foam ([0023]).
Claims 9-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (DE 10-2018-209817, see Machine Translation) in view of Subramaniam et al. (US 2013/0043071) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tanabe et al. (US 2015/0372158).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a shore hardness of 60-100 or 80-90 and a density of 0.8 – 1.2 kg/dm3.
Tanabe et al. discloses a battery module (Abstract) including structural plastic polymer material having a Shore hardness of 60-85 ([0026]) and a density of 0.865 – 0.884 g/cm3 (which = 0.865 – 0.884 kg/dm3, [0025]). This enhances the structural integrity of the battery and sealing structure ([0015], [0089]).
Tanabe et al. and Braun are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries and polymer plastics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the polyurethane of modified Braun as having a Shore value of 60-85 and density of 0.865 – 0.884 kg/dm3 as disclosed by Tanabe to enhance the overall structural integrity of the assembly structure.
Regarding claim 10, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plastics body is molded on at least one housing part (Fig 2, at ref 1) of a housing (ref 1) for receiving the busbars (refs 3).
Regarding claim 11, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plastics body ([0023], ref 6) is configured to surround ([0023], Fig 2) at least one busbar (refs 3) in the peripheral direction of the cross section thereof orthogonal to its longitudinal extent at least on three sides (depicted in Fig 2, [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plastics body ([0023], ref 6) is configured by applying foam ([0023]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plastics body ([0023], ref 6) is molded on at least a lower shell (Fig 2, ref 6 is molded to ref 1, which is a lower attachment portion).
Regarding claim 20, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plastics body ([0023], ref 6) is configured to completely surround ([0023], [0040], Fig 2) at least one busbar (refs 3) in the peripheral direction of the cross section thereof orthogonal to its longitudinal extent (depicted in Fig 2, [0023], [0040]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (DE 10-2018-209817, see Machine Translation) in view of Subramaniam et al. (US 2013/0043071) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Rock et al. (US 2021/0249739).
Regarding claim 15, modified Braun discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the busbars comprise aluminum strips.
Rock et al. discloses in Figs 1-11, a battery module (Abstract, ref 70) including an electrical connection unit (ref 50) including busbars formed of aluminum ([0057). This configuration is a light weight configuration ([0057]).
Rock et al. and Braun are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery busbars.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the busbars of Braun as aluminum as disclosed by Rock et al. to enhance the light weight configuration of the busbar assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rautiainen et al. (US 2019/0091551) discloses in Figs 1-8, an electric vehicle (Abstract, ref 625) including battery modules (Abstract, ref 615) that include high density polyurethane foam ([0034]-[0035]) for vibration-dampening effects.
Yebka et al. (US 2019/0305380) discloses in Figs 1-12, an assembly (ref 710) including a battery (ref 100) and a structure within the battery formed of a polyurethane of a Shore rating of 60 ([0070]). This is a durable, resilient material, thereby enhancing the overall structural integrity of the assembly and battery structure ([0065]-[0072]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights