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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species for Group I, directed towards the configuration of the rib, and for Group II, directed towards the configuration of the end portions.
Group I:
Species A: L-bend
Species B: T-rib.
Group II:
Species C: Z-shaped
Species D: Unbent or substantially straight
The species are independent or distinct because they do not overlap in scope and recite mutually exclusive structures. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1, 8, 13, and 17 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During telephone conversations with Todd W. Barrett on 4/21/2026 and 4/23/2026 provisional elections were made without traverse to prosecute the invention of the rib configured as a T-rib and wherein the first and second end portions are Z-shaped, as in claims 4, 9, 15, and 18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 2, 3, 10, 14 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination, the term “a weld” in Claims 6 and 13 is taken to mean a singular weld that secures the first tab terminal, the rib, and the second tab terminal together.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Izawa et al (US 2023/0344090), hereinafter Izawa.
Regarding Claim 1, Izawa teaches:
A traction battery pack (Par 0030, battery module 1, “mounted on an electric vehicle”, Fig 1)
a busbar including a rib (Abstract, bus bar 152, Fig 5A)
a first battery cell including a first tab terminal connected to a first side of the rib (Par 0044, positive electrode tabs 101, aluminum material Ma, Fig. 7)
a second battery cell including a second tab terminal connected to a second side of the rib (Par 0044, negative electrode tabs 102, copper material Mc, Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 4, Izawa teaches the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 1, Izawa further teaches:
wherein the rib is configured as a T-rib (Abs, “plate-shaped tab connection portions standing on an outer peripheral surface of the bus bar holder”, Fig. 5A)
Regarding Claim 5, Izawa teaches the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 1, Izawa further teaches:
wherein the rib extends in a direction away from the first battery cell and the second battery cell (Abs, “plate-shaped tab connection portions standing on an outer peripheral surface of the bus bar holder”, Fig. 5A)
Regarding Claim 7, Izawa teaches the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 1, Izawa further teaches:
the rib is positioned between a first opening and a second opening formed through the busbar (Par 0039, slip openings 156a to 156h, Fig. 5A)
Regarding Claim 8, Izawa teaches the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 1, Izawa further teaches:
wherein a first end portion of the first tab terminal extends through the first opening (Par 0039, “openings for drawing the positive electrode tabs 101 and the negative electrode tabs 102 of the cell stack BSS to the front side of the bus bar holder”, Fig 5A)
a second end portion of the second tab terminal extends through the second opening (Par 0039, “openings for drawing the positive electrode tabs 101 and the negative electrode tabs 102 of the cell stack BSS to the front side of the bus bar holder”, Fig 5A)
Regarding Claim 11, Izawa teaches the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 1, Izawa further teaches:
wherein the busbar is held within a busbar frame (Abs, bus bar holder 150, Fig 5a)
wherein the busbar frame and the busbar establish a bus bar module of the traction battery pack (Par 0032, bus bar module 15, Fig 5a)
Regarding Claim 12, Izawa teaches the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 11, Izawa further teaches:
wherein the busbar module further includes a second busbar held within the busbar frame (Abs, bus bars 152, 153, Fig 5A)
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) 6, 9, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa in view of Yamaguchi (JP 2016091607).
Regarding Claim 6, Izawa teaches the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 1. While Izawa does teach a weld that secures the first tab terminal to the first side of the rib (Par 0068, welding portion 1012, Fig. 18b) and a weld that secures the second tab terminal to the second side of the rib (Par 0068, welding portion 1021, Fig. 18b), as stated in the claim interpretation section above, Izawa does not teach a singular weld that secures all of the pieces together. However, Yamaguchi teaches a singular weld. (Par 0037, welding portion 90, Fig. 8)
Izawa and Yamaguchi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of manufacturing a busbar module for a battery pack. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Izawa to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi by welding the first and second end portions together with the rib instead of separately. Doing so would mechanically and electrically connect all the portions together. (Yamaguchi, Par 0037)
Regarding Claim 9, Izawa teaches the traction battery pack as recited in claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are Z-shaped. However, Yamaguchi teaches:
wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are Z-shaped. (Par 0008, bent parts (5, 6) formed in the respective electrodes (2, 3), Fig. 5)
Izawa and Yamaguchi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of manufacturing a busbar module for a battery pack. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Izawa to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi by bending the electrode tabs to form a z shape prior to welding. Doing so would bring the tip portions of the tabs close to each other, which is necessary for welding. (Yamaguchi, Par 0005)
Regarding Claim 13, Izawa teaches:
A traction battery pack (Par 0030, battery module 1, “mounted on an electric vehicle”, Fig 1)
a busbar including a first opening, a second opening, and a rib between the first opening and the second opening (Par 0039, slip openings 156a to 156h, bus bar 152, Fig. 5A)
a first battery cell including a first housing and a first tab terminal extending from the first housing (Par 0048, foam sheet 19, battery cell 10, positive electrode tab 101, Fig. 9)
a second battery cell including a second housing and a second tab terminal extending from the second housing (Par 0048, foam sheet 19, battery cell 10, positive electrode tab 101, Fig. 9)
wherein the first tab terminal extends through the first opening and is connected to a first side of the rib, and the second tab terminal extends through the second opening and is connected to a second side of the rib (Par 0039, “openings for drawing the positive electrode tabs 101 and the negative electrode tabs 102 of the cell stack BSS to the front side of the bus bar holder”, Fig 5A) (Par 0044, positive electrode tabs 101, aluminum material Ma, Fig. 7) (Par 0044, negative electrode tabs 102, copper material Mc, Fig. 7)
While Izawa does teach a weld that secures the first tab terminal to the first side of the rib (Par 0068, welding portion 1012, Fig. 18b) and a weld that secures the second tab terminal to the second side of the rib (Par 0068, welding portion 1021, Fig. 18b), as stated in the claim interpretation section above, Izawa does not teach a singular weld that secures all of the pieces together. However, Yamaguchi teaches a singular weld (Par 0037, welding portion 90, Fig. 8).
Izawa and Yamaguchi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of manufacturing a busbar module for a battery pack. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Izawa to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi by welding the first and second end portions together with the rib instead of separately. Doing so would mechanically and electrically connect all the portions together. (Yamaguchi, Par 0037)
Regarding Claim 15, Izawa and Yamaguchi teach the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 13, Izawa further teaches:
wherein the rib is configured as a T-rib. (Abs, “plate-shaped tab connection portions standing on an outer peripheral surface of the bus bar holder”, Fig. 5A)
Regarding Claim 16, Izawa and Yamaguchi teach the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 13, Izawa further teaches:
wherein the rib extends in a direction away from the first battery cell and the second battery cell. (Abstract, “plate-shaped tab connection portions standing on an outer peripheral surface of the bus bar holder”, Fig. 5A)
Regarding Claim 17 Izawa and Yamaguchi teach the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 13, Izawa further teaches:
wherein a first end portion of the first tab terminal extends through the first opening, and a second end portion of the second tab terminal extends through the second opening (Par 0039, “openings for drawing the positive electrode tabs 101 and the negative electrode tabs 102 of the cell stack BSS to the front side of the bus bar holder”, Fig 5A)
Regarding Claim 18, Izawa and Yamaguchi teach the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 17, Yamaguchi further teaches:
wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are Z-shaped (Par 0008, bent parts (5, 6) formed in the respective electrodes (2, 3), Fig. 5)
Izawa and Yamaguchi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of manufacturing a busbar module for a battery pack. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Izawa to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi by bending the electrode tabs to form a z shape prior to welding. Doing so would bring the tip portions of the tabs close to each other, which is necessary for welding. (Yamaguchi, Par 0005)
Regarding Claim 20, Izawa and Yamaguchi teach the traction battery pack as recited in Claim 17, Izawa further teaches:
wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are positioned on an opposite side of the busbar from the first housing and the second housing (Par 0039, “openings for drawing the positive electrode tabs 101 and the negative electrode tabs 102 of the cell stack BSS to the front side of the bus bar holder”, Fig 5A, Fig. 2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ungorr Nassery whose telephone number is (571)305-5068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/U.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights