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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 8/7/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 17 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/7/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “the axial end” does not make grammatical sense and is assumed to be a typo. 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.
Claims 1-16, 18-22 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 1 recites the limitation "the same orientation" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what “the same orientation” means because it has not been previously introduced.
This limitation will be interpreted as “a same orientation” for the purposes of examination.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a third wire" in line 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if this is the same third wire as is introduced in claim 3 or a different third wire, creating indefiniteness.
For the purposes of examination, this will be treated as the same third wire as introduced in claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the event” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine what is meant by this limitation rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the respective battery cell" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine which battery cell is “the respective battery cell” because no such limitation has been previously introduced.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “at least one self-tapping non-conductive screw” in lines 4-5. This renders the claim indefinite because “at least one self-tapping non-conductive screw” had previously been introduced in line 2, so one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if this is the same screw or a different screw.
The second “at least one self-tapping non-conductive screw” is optional because of the claim language “and/or” so it will not be addressed in this office action.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a head with an axial end” in line 6. This renders the claim indefinite because “a head with an axial end” had previously been introduced in line 3, so one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if this is the same a head with an axial end or a different one.
This limitation is also optional because of the language “and/or” so it will not be addressed.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine which direction is “the axial direction” because no such limitation has been previously introduced.
This will be interpreted as “an axial direction” for the purposes of examination.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the axial ends" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine which end is “the axial end” because no such limitation has been previously introduced.
This will be interpreted as “an axial end” for the purposes of examination.
Claims 2-16, 18-22 are rejected based on their dependencies on claims also rejected, as addressed above.
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 1-8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20200317357-A1 (D).
Regarding claim 1, D teaches:
A battery module (600), comprising:
at least one first battery cell (see annotated Fig. 8B below);
at least one second battery cell (see annotated Fig. 8B below);
a support structure (608);
a first bus bar (606); and
a second bus bar (618),
wherein the first battery cell and the second battery cell are received in the support structure in the same orientation (see Fig. 6A), said first bus bar and said second bus bar being disposed on said support structure (see Fig. 6A), said first battery cell and said second battery cell each having a first terminal (615) and a second terminal [0083] bus bar is connected to bottom terminals.
PNG
media_image1.png
751
901
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, D teaches the first terminal of the first battery cell is connected to the first bus bar by a first wire and a second wire (see annotated Fig 8B below), wherein the first terminal of the second battery cell is connected to the first terminal of the first battery cell and the first bus bar via the first wire. Taken together, the sections of wire designated to be taken together as the first wire connect the first contacts of the first and second battery cells electrically, and connect the first and second batteries to the bus bar, so they meet the requirements for the first wire of the instant claim 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
751
901
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, D teaches the second terminal of the first battery cell is connected to the second bus bar by a third wire (see annotated Fig. 6B below).
PNG
media_image3.png
797
899
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, D teaches the second terminal of the second battery cell is connected to the second bus bar via a third wire and is connected to the second terminal of the first battery cell (see annotated Fig. 6B above). The two sections of wire taken together form an electrical connection between the second terminals of the first and second batteries and the bus bar, so they meet the requirements for the third wire of the instant claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the second terminal of the second battery cell is connected to the second bus bar by a fourth wire (see annotated Fig. 6B above).
Regarding claim 6, D teaches the first and second and third and fourth wires are formed as an electrical fuse element (804 for first and second, 6), so that in the event of an overcurrent the respective battery cell can be individually disconnected.
The claim language “so that in the event of an overcurrent the respective battery cell can be individually disconnected.” is intended use. D teaches all of the structural requirements of the instant claims 1-5 as explained above, and further teaches the first, second, third, and fourth wires form fuse elements. This constitutes all of the positively recited structural requirements of the instant claims 1-6, so D anticipates invention of the instant claim 6.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding claim 7, D teaches the first wire, second wire, the third wire, and the fourth wire are made of aluminum [0079], [0083].
Regarding claim 8, D teaches the first bus bar comprises a first coupling structure (part of 606 indicated by the line in Fig. 6), and wherein the second bus bar comprises a second coupling structure (626), [0086], such that the first bus bar and the second bus bar are connectable to bus bars of another battery module [0086].
Regarding claim 12, D teaches the support structure (608) comprises at least one first receptacle (circular opening, see Fig. 6A) for the first battery cell and at least one second receptacle (circular opening, see Fig. 6A) for the second battery cell, wherein the first receptacle at least partially circumferentially surrounds the first battery cell and wherein the second receptacle at least partially circumferentially surrounds the second battery cell (both circles completely circumferentially surround the battery cells).
Regarding claim 13, D teaches the first battery cell is arranged in the first receptacle in a form-fitting manner (the circular opening matches the shape of the battery cell) and the second battery cell is arranged in the second receptacle in a form-fitting manner (the circular opening matches the shape of the battery cell).
The following limitations are optional because of the use of “and/or” in the claim language:
The first battery cell is arranged in the first receptacle in a force-fitting manner.
The first battery cell is bonded to the first receptacle.
The second battery cell is arranged in the second receptacle in a force-fitting manner.
The second battery cell is bonded to the second receptacle.
Regarding claim 14, D teaches the battery module comprises exactly one support structure (only one 608 is labeled).
Regarding claim 15, D teaches the first battery cell and the second battery cell are arranged in parallel (the connections shown in Fig. 6B and 8B mean they are connected in parallel).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200317357-A1 (D) in view of US-20040043287-A1 (BM).
Regarding claim 9, D teaches the support structure is made of or reinforced with glass fiber [0068].
D does not teach the support structure is made of unreinforced plastic.
BM teaches battery support structure (11) which is made of a plurality of synthetic resin grommets [0063]. BM teaches the benefit of the plate shaped member is it allows for variance in axial length of the battery cells [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling of the instant invention to replace the support structure of D with the support structure of BM in order to achieve the benefit of improved adaptability for variance in axial length of the battery cells. It would have been obvious to do because it would amount to no more than the substitution of one known battery support structure for another with known benefits.
This modification would mean the support structure is made of a plastic, the plastic is unreinforced, so claim 9 is unpatentable over the combination.
Claims 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200317357-A1 (D) in view of US-20040043287-A1 (BM) and in further view of US-20140023909-A1 (S).
Regarding claim 10, D teaches the support structure is made of or reinforced with glass fiber [0068].
D does not teach the support structure is made of unreinforced plastic.
BM teaches battery support structure (11) which is made of a plurality of synthetic resin grommets [0063]. BM teaches the benefit of the plate shaped member is it allows for variance in axial length of the battery cells [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling of the instant invention to replace the support structure of D with the support structure of BM in order to achieve the benefit of improved adaptability for variance in axial length of the battery cells. It would have been obvious to do because it would amount to no more than the substitution of one known battery support structure for another with known benefits.
BM further teaches the first bus bar is secured to the support structure via at least one non-conductive screw (49) (the bolt is substantially similar to a screw), the at least non-conductive screw having a head with an axial end (portion facing towards the perspective of Fig. 1). Even though it isn’t screwed into the support structure, the presence of the screw in the assembly of BM constrains the cells into the support structure, so it secures them to the support structure. This would remain the same in the modification described above.
BM does not teach the bolt is self-tapping.
S teaches self-tapping screws can be used to improve efficiency when assembling battery support structures [0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use self-tapping screws as the insulating screws of BM because S teaches they improve efficiency during assembly. It would have been obvious to do because S teaches a clear benefit and because the non-conductive screw of BM and the self-tapping screws of S both are used for assembling battery support structures, so doing so would amount to no more than applying a known improvement to a similar product to achieve predictable results.
The combination described above would mean that the support structure would be secured to the bus bar using a self-tapping, non-conductive screw, rendering claim 10 unpatentable over the combination.
Regarding claim 11, BM teaches the at least one self-tapping non- conductive screw is fiberglass filled [0058].
Claim 16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200317357-A1 (D) in view of US-20200076018-A1 (BK).
Regarding claim 16, the teachings of D are explained in the rejections of claim 1 above.
D does not teach a battery comprising at least one first battery module and at least one second battery module wherein the first battery cell of the first battery module and the first battery cell of the second battery module are aligned in the axial direction, and wherein the second battery cell of the first battery module and the second battery cell of the second battery module are aligned in the axial direction.
BK teaches a battery comprising one first set of battery cells (102) and a second set of battery cells (104) [0030] wherein the first and second sets of battery cells are aligned in the axial direction (see Fig. 1). BK teaches the benefit of arranging two sets of battery cells this way is they both may be cooled with the same cooling plate and so the size of the battery may be reduced [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the battery module of D into a battery like that of BK in order to achieve a reduced size of the battery system. It would have been obvious to do because D and BK both teach sets of cylindrical battery cells with parallel axis and BK teaches an arrangement of such cells that allow for reduced sizing of a battery made from the sets of battery cells.
Regarding claim 18, D teaches the first battery module is received in a first perforated plate (616) by receiving the axial ends of the first battery cell and the second battery cell of the first battery module facing away from the support structure (608) in corresponding holes of the first perforated plate (see Fig. 6A). In the process of implementing the battery module of D in a battery design like that of BK, this arrangement would be mirrored because the batteries of BK are mirrored across the cooling plate [0027] 106 and 108 are both positive ends. That would mean the second battery module is received in a second perforated plate by receiving the axial ends of the first battery cell and the second battery cell of the second battery module facing away from the support structure in corresponding holes of the second perforated plate.
Regarding claim 19, D teaches the first battery module is fixed to the first perforated plate ([0085], the bus bars are fastened to 616 and the batteries are attached to the bus bars), and in particular is screwed (the fasteners are positioned in holes so they must meet the requirements of screwing [0085]). BK teaches the first and second sets of battery cells are coupled to the cooling plate [0026], so the first and second perforated plates are fixed to each other by proxy. This means that the first battery module is fixed to the second perforated plate because it is locked in space in relation to the plate. The same is true for the second battery module to the first perforated plate, because it is a mirrored version of the arrangement of the first battery module as explained in the rejection of claim 18. The battery modules are fixed to their respective perforating plates via fasteners, which are sufficiently similar to screws, so they are screwed to their respective perforating plates even if the fastener isn’t directly entering the opposing perforated plate.
Therefore, claim 19 is unpatentable over the combination.
Regarding claim 20, BK teaches a thermal plate (120) is disposed between the first battery module and the second battery module.
Regarding claim 21, BK teaches a first thermally conductive layer [0026] “coupling element may provide good thermal conductivity) is disposed between the thermal plate and the first battery module and wherein a second thermally conductive layer is disposed between the thermal plate and the second battery module [0026].
Regarding claim 22, BK teaches the thermal plate is of a highly thermally conductive material ([0025] good thermal coupling, in the context of transferring heat to a cooling fluid means that it is highly conductive).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
