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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 20210226261 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a battery pack (module) comprising a plurality of battery cells (10) and busbars (200) configured to electrically connect the battery cells (10) [0054 and Fig. 1-2]. From Fig. 5 can be observed that from the employed busbars (200), the busbar with the second output terminal (501) is a linear bus bar electrically connecting two adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells and it is partially surrounded by a “leaping bus bar electrically connecting multiple non-adjacent battery cells of plurality of battery cells” (see Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Lim annotated Figure 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 2, Lim teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. The limitation “wherein the leaping bus bar includes a plate having a flat edge opposite a cutout edge” can be observed from annotated Figure 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Lim teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 2. The “leaping busbar” as identified in claim 1 discussion has a “cutout edge” which allows the “linear busbar” branches (200 a) to be placed on such “cutout edge”, therefore meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Lim teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Lim teaches two terminal busbars having output terminals (501 and 502) which are “electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of battery cells in the battery stack” and “extend from a same end of the battery stack”.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210226261 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zeng et al. (US 20200091474 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lim teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except wherein an insulator is disposed on one or more of the leaping bus bar or the linear bus bar.
Zeng teaches a battery module comprising a plurality of battery units (1), where the battery unit can be a single battery cell (11) or a battery group formed by connecting a plurality of battery cells (11) [0043, Fig. 1 and 5]. In the battery module the plurality of battery units (1) are connected in series through the bridging busbar (4) and an adjacent busbar (3) [0045]. From Figure 4 can be observed a battery module embodiment where two adjacent battery cells (11) are connected by the adjacent busbar (3) (linear busbar) and two non-adjacent battery cells (11) are connected by the bridging busbar (4) (leaping busbar). Zeng further teaches that its bridging busbars (4) (leaping busbar) is provided with a protective sleeve made of an insulating material, in order to prevent a short circuit between the bridging busbars (4) (leaping busbar) and its bridged battery units (1) [0048 and Figs. 7-10].
Lim is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery module (pack) comprising: a battery stack with a plurality of battery cells; a leaping bus bar electrically connecting multiple non-adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells; and a linear bus bar electrically connecting multiple adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells, the multiple adjacent battery cells being disposed between the multiple non-adjacent battery cells electrically connected by the leaping bus bar.
Zeng is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery module (pack) comprising: a battery stack with a plurality of battery cells; a leaping bus bar electrically connecting multiple non-adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells; and a linear bus bar electrically connecting multiple adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the “leaping busbar” of Lim to include the feature wherein an insulator is disposed on it, because Zeng teaches that it can prevent a short circuit between the “leaping busbar” and its bridged battery units.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20210226261 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Lim teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Lim further teaches on its background that for devices such as electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles battery modules (battery packs) each including a plurality of batteries are preferred, and that the output voltages or currents of battery modules may be increased by adjusting the number of batteries included in each battery module [0003]. Since a battery pack comprising a plurality of batteries is taught, the claimed limitation “an odd number of the plurality of battery cells” in their broader interpretation can be considered overlapped.
Lim is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery module (pack) comprising: a battery stack with a plurality of battery cells; a leaping bus bar electrically connecting multiple non-adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells; and a linear bus bar electrically connecting multiple adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells, the multiple adjacent battery cells being disposed between the multiple non-adjacent battery cells electrically connected by the leaping bus bar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the plurality of battery cells (10) range disclosed by Lim because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 20210399377 A1) in view of Alternative Fuels Data Center (How Do All-Electric Cars Work?, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 7, Du teaches a battery module including a plurality of batteries (20) greater than or equal to four, arranged in a direction M2 (stack) [0028, Fig. 1 and 5]. The battery module further comprises a jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping bus bar) configured to connect four batteries (20) arranged at intervals, and a neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear bus bar) configured to electrically connect a plurality of batteries (20) arranged adjacently [0028, 0029, Fig. 1 and 5]. From Fig. 1 can be observed that the batteries (20) connected by the neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear bus bar) are arranged in the notch (cutout) of the jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping bus bar) [0030], therefore being “disposed between the multiple non-adjacent battery cells electrically connected by the leaping bus bar”.
Du does not teach the feature “a machine, comprising: an electric motor; and a battery module electrically connected to the electric motor”.
Alternative Fuels Data Center teaches that all-electric vehicles uses a large traction battery pack to power the electric motor, which is further employed to drive the vehicle’s wheels [p. 1; par. 1 and Electric traction motor section].
Du is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery module including: a battery stack with a plurality of battery cells, a leaping bus bar electrically connecting multiple non-adjacent battery cells of the battery stack, and a linear bus bar electrically connecting multiple adjacent battery cells of the battery stack, the multiple adjacent battery cells being disposed between the multiple non-adjacent battery cells electrically connected by the leaping bus bar, and the linear bus bar being nested within a cutout edge of the leaping bus bar.
Alternative Fuels Data Center is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a machine, comprising: an electric motor; and a battery module electrically connected to the electric motor.
If the battery module taught by Du is incorporated in an all-electric vehicle battery pack used to drive an electric motor, the claimed limitations would be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module taught by Du to be “connected to an electric motor comprised by a machine”, because Alternative Fuels Data Center teaches that for all-electric vehicles this feature is employed to drive the vehicle’s wheels.
Regarding claim 8, Du and Alternative Fuels Data Center teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 7. From Du’s Fig. 1 and 4 can be observed that its jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping bus bar) is a plate having a flat edge opposite the notch (cutout) edge, wherein the notch (cutout) edge has a U-shaped configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Du and Alternative Fuels Data Center teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 7. Du further teaches that its battery module has two output terminals (S1 and S2) (terminal bus bars) “electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of battery cells in the battery stack” [0086]. From Fig. 5 can be observed that the output terminals (S1 and S2) (terminal bus bars) “extends from a same end of the battery stack”.
Regarding claim 11, Du and Alternative Fuels Data Center teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 7. From Du’s Fig. 5 going from the output terminals (S1 and S2) (terminal bus bars) end to the M2 direction closer to 0, several jumper electrode connectors (10) (leaping bus bars) and neighbor electrode connectors (30) (linear bus bars) can be identified on component regions (Q3 and Q4)(see Figure 2 below). From these electrode connectors a first and second jumper electrode connectors (10) (leaping bus bars) and neighbor electrode connectors (30) (linear bus bars) respectively can be identified. From Du’s Fig. 19 can be confirmed that the batteries (20) are connected in series by the employed bus bars.
Regarding claim 12, Du and Alternative Fuels Data Center teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 11. Depending on how the jumper electrode connectors (10) (leaping bus bars) and neighbor electrode connectors (30) (linear bus bars) on component regions (Q3 and Q4), as shown in Fig. 5, are selected it can be observed that the first jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping busbar) is “electrically connected to a negative terminal of a battery cell” and that the second neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear busbar) is “electrically connected to a positive terminal of the battery cell” (see Du’s Fig. 19 and Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
463
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Du’s annotated Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 13, Du and Alternative Fuels Data Center teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 12. From claim 12 discussion the limitations wherein the second jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping busbar) is “electrically connected to a positive terminal of a battery cell” and that the first neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear busbar) is “electrically connected to a negative terminal of the battery cell” (see Du’s Fig. 19 and Figure 2 above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 20210399377 A1) in view of Alternative Fuels Data Center (How Do All-Electric Cars Work?, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 7 above, evidenced by GRL (How to Calculate Busbar Current Capacity for Electrical Systems, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 10, Du and Alternative Fuels Data Center teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 7, except “wherein a first electrical resistance associated with the leaping bus bar is equal to a second electrical resistance associated with the linear bus bar”.
GRL evidence that the cross-sectional area of the busbar is one of the most important parameters affecting current capacity, because the larger the cross-section, the lower the electrical resistance and the better the heat dissipation capability [p. 3; 2. Cross-Sectional Area].
From GRL evidence the cross-sectional area of Du’s employed jumper electrode connectors (10) (leaping bus bars) and neighbor electrode connectors (30) (linear bus bars) can be tuned to achieve an equal electrical resistance between them.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Du and Alternative Fuels Data Center, evidenced by GRL. However, from evidence provided by GRL, equal electrical resistance can be achieved by tunning the cross-sectional area of the respective busbars. According to the original specification, despite being different lengths and having different shapes, a leaping bus bar 204 and a linear bus bar 206 may have the same (e.g., equal) electrical resistance if at least a portion of the leaping bus bar 204 and a portion of the linear bus bar 206 have the same cross-sectional area. For example, the leaping bus bar 204 and the linear bus bar 206 may have different thicknesses from each other to equalize their electrical resistances [0026]. From the above reasons, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed equal electrical resistance between the busbars, would expectedly be achieved. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Claims 14, 15 and 17-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 20210399377 A1) in view of Rhee et al. (US 20220209365 A1) and evidenced by Battery University (BU-302: Series and Parallel Battery Configurations, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 14, Du teaches a battery module including a plurality of batteries (20) greater than or equal to four, arranged in a direction M2 (stack) [0028, Fig. 1 and 5]. The battery module further comprises a jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping bus bar) configured to electrically connect a plurality of batteries (20) arranged at intervals, and a neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear bus bar) configured to electrically connect a plurality of batteries (20) arranged adjacently [0028, 0029, Fig. 1 and 5]. The number of batteries (20) to be electrically connected by the jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping bus bar) and the neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear bus bar) it is not limited [0029 and 0030]. The plurality of batteries (20) arranged at intervals can be connected in series and/or in parallel [0026]. From Fig. 1 can be observed that the batteries (20) connected by the neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear bus bar) are arranged in the notch (cutout) of the jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping bus bar) [0030], therefore being “disposed between the multiple non-adjacent battery cells electrically connected by the leaping bus bar”.
Du does not teach the feature “a battery pack, comprising a first battery module and a second battery module electrically connected to the first battery module, both the first battery module and the second battery module having terminals on a same end of the battery pack”.
Rhee teaches a battery pack including a first and second battery module electrically connected to each other by a busbar [0009]. Battery University evidence that battery packs may have batteries connected in parallel (terminals on a same end) [p. 1; par. 1-2]. With the parallel connection the nominal voltage of an arbitrary battery pack remains the same, but the capacity (Ah) and runtime are increased [p. 3; par. 6]. Despite the evidence is regarding singular batteries, this is applicable to battery modules.
Du is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery module including: a battery stack with a plurality of battery cells, a leaping bus bar electrically connecting multiple non-adjacent battery cells of the battery stack, and a linear bus bar electrically connecting multiple adjacent battery cells of the battery stack, the multiple adjacent battery cells being disposed between the multiple non-adjacent battery cells electrically connected by the leaping bus bar, and the linear bus bar being nested within a cutout edge of the leaping bus bar.
Rhee is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a battery pack, comprising a first battery module and a second battery module electrically connected to the first battery module, wherein both the first battery module and the second battery module having terminals on a same end of the battery pack.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery module of Du to be part of a “battery pack, comprising a first battery module and a second battery module electrically connected to the first battery module, both the first battery module and the second battery module having terminals on a same end of the battery pack”, because Rhee teaches the referred feature and Battery University evidence that by having a parallel connection between battery modules, the nominal voltage of an arbitrary battery pack remains the same, but the capacity (Ah) and runtime are increased.
Regarding claim 15, Du, Rhee and Battery University teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14. From Du’s Fig. 1 and 4 can be observed that its jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping bus bar) is a plate having a flat edge opposite the notch (cutout) edge, wherein the notch (cutout) edge is contoured according to a peripheral shape of the neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear bus bar).
Regarding claim 17, Du, Rhee and Battery University teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14. From claim 14 discussion and Du’s Fig. 19, which indicates the electrical connection relationship between different batteries [0086], a battery module as shown in Figure 3 below is achievable.
PNG
media_image3.png
559
1527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Battery module obtainable from Du’s teachings.
From Figure 3 above, going from the M2 direction closer to 0 toward the contrary end, the limitation “wherein the leaping bus bar is electrically connected to a first terminal of a first battery cell in the multiple non-adjacent battery cells and to a second terminal of a second battery cell in the multiple non-adjacent battery cells, and wherein the first terminal and the second terminal have a same polarity”.
Regarding claim 18, Du, Rhee and Battery University teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14. From claim 14 discussion and Du’s Fig. 19, which indicates the electrical connection relationship between different batteries [0086], a battery module as shown in Figure 4 below is achievable.
PNG
media_image4.png
559
1495
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Battery module obtainable from Du’s teachings.
From Figure 4 above, going in the M2 direction closer to 0 toward the contrary end, the limitation “wherein the linear bus bar is electrically connected to a first terminal of a first battery cell in the multiple adjacent battery cells and to a second terminal of a second battery cell in the multiple adjacent battery cells, and wherein the first terminal and the second terminal have an opposite polarity” is met.
Regarding claim 19, Du, Rhee and Battery University teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14. From claim 14 discussion, a battery module as shown in Figure 5 below is achievable.
PNG
media_image5.png
660
1843
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5: Battery module obtainable from Du’s teachings.
From Figure 5 above going from the center of the battery module to the ends, a first and second jumper electrode connector (10) (leaping bus bar) and neighbor electrode connector (30) (linear bus bar), can be identified respectively. In a similar way for each pair of adjacent connected batteries, a first and second battery cell can be identified. From Figure 5, the limitation “wherein the first leaping bus bar and the second linear bus bar are electrically connected to different terminals of a first battery cell of the plurality of battery cells and wherein the first linear bus bar and the second leaping bus bar are electrically connected to different terminals of a second battery cell of the plurality of battery cells” is met.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (US 20210399377 A1) in view of Rhee et al. (US 20220209365 A1) and evidenced by Battery University (BU-302: Series and Parallel Battery Configurations, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 14 above, evidenced by GRL (How to Calculate Busbar Current Capacity for Electrical Systems, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 16, Du, Rhee and Battery University teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14, except “wherein a first electrical resistance associated with the leaping bus bar is equal to a second electrical resistance associated with the linear bus bar”
GRL evidence that the cross-sectional area of the busbar is one of the most important parameters affecting current capacity, because the larger the cross-section, the lower the electrical resistance and the better the heat dissipation capability [p. 3; 2. Cross-Sectional Area].
From GRL evidence the cross-sectional area of Du’s employed jumper electrode connectors (10) (leaping bus bars) and neighbor electrode connectors (30) (linear bus bars) can be tuned to achieve an equal electrical resistance between them.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Du, Rhee and Battery University, evidenced by GRL. However, from evidence provided by GRL, equal electrical resistance can be achieved by tunning the cross-sectional area of the respective busbars. According to the original specification, despite being different lengths and having different shapes, a leaping bus bar 204 and a linear bus bar 206 may have the same (e.g., equal) electrical resistance if at least a portion of the leaping bus bar 204 and a portion of the linear bus bar 206 have the same cross-sectional area. For example, the leaping bus bar 204 and the linear bus bar 206 may have different thicknesses from each other to equalize their electrical resistances [0026]. From the above reasons, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed equal electrical resistance between the busbars, would expectedly be achieved. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights