DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 2013/03/16, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2023/11/16, 2024/03/19, 2024/04/18, 2024/05/03, 2024/05/07, 2024/05/30, 2025/06/18, and 2026/07/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
The abstract omits any mention of the bridging adapter claimed in Claims 7, 13 – 15.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 1, ll. 19: “batterie” should be “battery”.
Pg. 5, ll. 12: “as a plurality” should read “has a plurality”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: “battery arrangement” should be “battery assembly”.
Claim 11: “to be to be connected” should read “to be connected”.
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(s) 4 – 5, 8, 10, 13 is/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.
In re claim 4, the phrase "preferably configured to direct the cooling air flow in particular at the battery modules" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase constitute limitations required by the claim or are merely exemplary, non-limiting refinements of a preferred embodiment.
In re claim 5, the phrase "in particular configured to simultaneously cover a plurality of ventilation openings... in particular over an entire width of the front plate" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase constitute limitations required by the claim or are merely exemplary, non-limiting refinements of a preferred embodiment.
In re claim 8, the phrase "in particular has seven installation units" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase constitute limitations required by the claim or are merely exemplary, non-limiting refinements of a preferred embodiment.
In re claim 10, the phrase "preferably has at least one module parameter" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase constitute limitations required by the claim or are merely exemplary, non-limiting refinements of a preferred embodiment.
The phrase "in particular less than 60 V, in particular less than 40 V, in particular less than 35 V" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase constitute limitations required by the claim or are merely exemplary, non-limiting refinements of a preferred embodiment.
The phrase "in particular less than 25 kg" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase constitute limitations required by the claim or are merely exemplary, non-limiting refinements of a preferred embodiment.
In re claim 13, the phrase "preferably in terms of control" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase constitute limitations required by the claim or are merely exemplary, non-limiting refinements of a preferred embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1)
In re claim 1, HIRNET discloses a battery assembly (battery storage system 1), comprising an installation frame (housing 2), which has a plurality of receiving compartments (storage compartments 20), which are arranged adjacent to one another (FIG. 1, 2: storage compartments 20 arranged in a grid with several rows and columns), whereby each receiving compartment is configured to receive a battery module (storage compartments 20, each suitable for holding a battery module 3), whereby the receiving compartments are open at least towards a front side of the installation frame, so that the battery modules can be introduced into the receiving compartments from the front side (¶[0014]: battery module inserted into receiving compartment from one side of housing, satisfying “front side”, which is functionally defined as the side of insertion).
However, HIRNET is silent to disclosing that the battery assembly for a charging station for electric vehicles. Looking at applicant’s disclosure (claims, drawing and specification), applicant only makes generic reference to electric vehicles (EVs) and that the use of the battery assembly is for an electric vehicle and/or EV charging station. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the HIRNET battery charging system would be useful in various battery charging systems including for EV batteries and that having this in a charging station would have been within ordinary skill as an efficient way to charge EV batteries.
In re claim 11, HIRNET discloses whereby the battery assembly has a control device (¶[0020]: central electronic control system), which is configured to be connected — electrically and in particular in terms of control — to the at least one battery module (¶[0020]: “The central electronics control system is set up to ensure all battery cells of a series connection are operated within permissible limits”).
Claim(s) 2 – 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), in view of KANG et al. (US 2013/0244066 A1).
In re claims 2 – 3, HIRNET is silent to whereby the battery arrangement has a front plate, which is configured to be arranged on the front side of the installation frame and to close the receiving compartments when the front plate is arranged on the front side of the installation frame; and whereby the front plate and the installation frame have corresponding fastening elements, which are configured to fasten the front plate to the installation frame.
KANG teaches whereby the battery arrangement has a front plate (front cover 27), which is configured to be arranged on the front side of the installation frame (¶[0082]: front cover 27 connected to front of battery module receiving apparatus) and to close the receiving compartments when the front plate is arranged on the front side of the installation frame (¶s [0022, 0082]: front cover 27 closes open front through which battery cells 11 are inserted).
As to claim 3, KANG further teaches whereby the front plate and the installation frame have corresponding fastening elements, which are configured to fasten the front plate to the installation frame (¶[0082]: front cover 27 connected to front of battery module receiving apparatus).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to combine KANG's front cover to HIRNET's housing in order to provide an output terminal, indicating lamp, and control connector at the front of the receiving compartments.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), KANG et al. (US 2013/0244066 A1), and further in view of THOUVENIN et al. (US 4,994,940).
In re claim 4, HIRNET is silent to whereby the front plate has a plurality of ventilation openings for a cooling air flow flowing through the receiving compartments, whereby the ventilation openings are preferably configured to direct the cooling air flow in particular at the battery modules.
THOUVENIN teaches whereby the front plate has a plurality of ventilation openings for a cooling air flow flowing through the receiving compartments (FIG. 7; Col. 3, ll. 61 - Col. 4, ll. 4: front plate 78 fitted with inlet grate 80 admitting cooling air into module 14 by chimney effect), whereby the ventilation openings are preferably configured to direct the cooling air flow in particular at the battery modules (FIG. 7; Col. 3, ll. 61 - Col. 4, ll. 4: inlet grates 80 (front plate 78), 82 (plinth 32) and outlet grate 84 (rear plate 76) positioned to direct chimney-effect cooling airflow through module 14 interior housing batteries 56).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine THOUVENIN's inlet and outlet grate arrangement to HIRNET's housing in order to direct a chimney-effect cooling airflow at the battery modules.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), KANG et al. (US 2013/0244066 A1), and further in view of TAYLOR (US 2009/0059486 A1).
In re claim 5, HIRNET is silent to whereby the battery assembly has at least one panel, which is configured to be arranged on the front plate and to cover at least one ventilation opening of the plurality of ventilation openings of the front plate, whereby the panel is in particular configured to simultaneously cover a plurality of ventilation openings, in particular over an entire width of the front plate.
TAYLOR teaches whereby the battery assembly has at least one panel (panel 10), which is configured to be arranged on the front plate (Abstract: panel modified to fit on a server rack) and to cover at least one ventilation opening of the plurality of ventilation openings of the front plate (Abstract: panel prevents circular flow of warm air by covering open space), whereby the panel is in particular configured to simultaneously cover a plurality of ventilation openings (Abstract; ¶[0026]: single panel piece covers desired amount of open space), in particular over an entire width of the front plate (¶[0022]: panel about 19.00-19.25 inches wide, matching full EIA rack width).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine TAYLOR's blanking panel to HIRNET's front plate in order to prevent the circular flow of warm exhaust air back into the cooler air intake by covering one or more ventilation openings.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), in view of LIPMAN (US 2003/0047364 A1).
In re claim 6, HIRNET discloses the battery assembly has a contacting plate (¶[0019]: electrical cable/wiring device), which is configured to contact the battery modules in the receiving compartments (¶s [0019, 0040]: battery module contacted with electrical wiring device of housing), in particular to connect them to one another in series (¶s [0019–0020]: cells coupled to achieve desired capacity; cells of a series connection).
HIRNET does not expressly disclose a contacting plate on a rear side located opposite the front side of the installation frame.
LIPMAN teaches an electrical contact structure on a rear side located opposite the front side (Claim 2(a): box "open at the front" with V-shaped terminals on the "interior rear wall", opposite the open front).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify HIRNET's housing to position the contacting plate on the rear side opposite the front insertion side, as taught by LIPMAN, to locate battery terminals on the interior rear wall directly opposite the point of battery insertion.
Claim(s) 7, 13 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), in view of GASSAUER (DE 10 2014 101 067 B3).
In re claim 7, HIRNET is silent to whereby the battery assembly has at least one bridging adapter, which is configured to bridge a receiving compartment of the plurality of receiving compartments, which is not fitted with a battery module.
GASSAUER teaches whereby the battery assembly has at least one bridging adapter (jumper plug 4), which is configured to bridge a receiving compartment of the plurality of receiving compartments (¶s [0009–0010]: jumper plug bridges connections, can be locked to terminal block), which is not fitted with a battery module (¶s [0009–0010, 0026]: bridging function operative when electricity meter/module absent).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine GASSAUER's jumper plug to HIRNET's unpopulated receiving compartment in order to maintain a further electrical supply by bridging the connections that would otherwise be routed through the removed component.
In re claims 13 – 14, HIRNET is silent to whereby the bridging adapter is configured to bridge a receiving compartment, which remains free, of the battery assembly electrically and preferably in terms of control; has two electrical bridging contacts, which are connected electrically conductively to one another, whereby the electrical bridging contacts are configured to each be electrically connected to an electrical contact of two electrical contacts assigned to the receiving compartment, which remains free.
GASSAUER teaches whereby the bridging adapter is configured to bridge a receiving compartment, which remains free (¶s [0009–0010]: bridging occurs when electricity meter is removed), of the battery assembly electrically and preferably in terms of control (¶[0051]: jumper contacts for electrically conductive connection with conductor and electricity meter terminals).
As to claim 14, GASSAUER further teaches whereby the bridging adapter has two electrical bridging contacts (jumper contacts 35), which are connected electrically conductively to one another (¶s [0067–0068]: two parallel plug-in contact sections 22 connected via common arc section 23), whereby the electrical bridging contacts are configured to each be electrically connected to an electrical contact of two electrical contacts assigned to the receiving compartment (¶s [0055–0056]: contacts electrically connected to conductor/electricity meter terminals of terminal block), which remains free (¶s [0009–0010]: terminal position remains free of electricity meter).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine GASSAUER's jumper plug to HIRNET's unpopulated receiving compartment in order to maintain a further electrical supply by bridging the connections that would otherwise be routed through the removed component.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), in view of THOUVENIN et al. (US 4,994,940).
In re claim 8, HIRNET discloses whereby the installation frame has a plurality of installation units (FIG. 2: seven rows of receiving compartments), which are arranged one on top of the other (¶[0014]: compartments arranged in a grid with several rows, populated bottom to top), whereby the installation frame in particular has seven installation units (¶[0037]: passage openings 40 arranged in seven rows and four columns).
HIRNET does not expressly disclose three respective receiving compartments, which are arranged next to one another.
THOUVENIN teaches a variable number of receiving compartments (Col. 4, ll. 5-8: number of batteries arranged in each row can be chosen depending on their size and type), which are arranged next to one another (Col. 4, ll. 5-8: batteries arranged side by side in fours on each horizontal shelf).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify HIRNET's rows of receiving compartments, as taught by THOUVENIN, to hold a number of units selected based on their size and type, arriving at three receiving compartments arranged side by side in each row.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), in view of JANG et al. (US 2025/0105440 A1).
In re claim 9, HIRNET is silent to whereby the installation frame is inclined with respect to a vertical.
JANG teaches whereby the installation frame is inclined with respect to a vertical (FIG. 4, 5; ¶s [0058–0059]: module case 120 slopes upward toward rear; support frame 210 lifts front side higher than rear side).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify HIRNET's installation frame to incline so the front side is higher than the rear side, as taught by JANG, to provide directionality to venting flow and direct it away from the front-side terminals.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), in view of LIEBIG et al. (US 2011/0023264 A1), and further in view of MORTON et al. (US 2023/0261331 A1).
In re claim 10, HIRNET discloses whereby the battery assembly has at least one battery module (battery module 3)
HIRNET does not expressly disclose whereby the at least one battery module preferably has at least one module parameter, which is selected from a group, consisting of: A voltage of less than 120 V, in particular less than 60 V, in particular less than 40 V, in particular less than 35 V; and a mass of less than 30 kg, in particular less than 25 kg.
LIEBIG teaches whereby the at least one battery module preferably has at least one module parameter, which is selected from a group, consisting of: A voltage of less than 35 V (¶[0020]: cell groups reach a voltage of 33.6 volts);
A PHOSITA would be motivated to modify HIRNET's battery modules to have a voltage of less than 35V, as taught by LIEBIG, to provide a margin of safety below the extra-low voltage threshold.
LIEBIG is silent to the at least one battery module preferably has at least one module parameter, which is selected from a group, consisting of: a mass of less than 30 kg, in particular less than 25 kg.
MORTON teaches whereby the at least one battery module preferably has at least one module parameter, which is selected from a group, consisting of: a mass of less than 25 kg (¶[0209]: weight of under 20 kg).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to modify HIRNET's battery modules to have a mass of less than 20 kg, as taught by MORTON, to enable the module to be readily moved and installed manually or by robotic effectors.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), in view of HEYNE et al. (US 2019/0106008 A1).
In re claim 12, HIRNET discloses a battery assembly (battery storage system 1).
HIRNET does not expressly disclose a charging station for electric vehicles.
HEYNE teaches a charging station for electric vehicles (Abstract; ¶[0004]: electricity charging station).
It would be obvious for a PHOSITA to combine HIRNET's battery assembly to HEYNE's charging station housing in order to minimize installation outlay and yield a more compact overall solution.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIRNET et al. (DE 10 2012 209 744 A1), GASSAUER (DE 10 2014 101 067 B3), and further in view of LEDDIGE et al. (US 6,539,449 B1).
In re claim 15, HIRNET is silent to whereby the bridging adapter has a bridging connection, which is configured to bridge a control connection assigned to the receiving compartment, which remains free.
LEDDIGE teaches whereby the bridging adapter has a bridging connection (Col. 1, ll. 42–44: continuity module provides a bridge), which is configured to bridge a control connection assigned to the receiving compartment (Col. 1, ll. 42–44: bridge between the memory controller, the memory modules, and the termination resistors), which remains free (Col. 1, ll. 36–37: sockets that do not receive a memory card must provide a pathway).
It would be obvious for a PHOSITA to combine LEDDIGE's continuity module to HIRNET's contact connection assigned to an unused receiving compartment in order to maintain a continuous signal pathway when the receiving compartment remains unpopulated.
Prior Art Disclaimer
The prior art applied in this Office Action includes foreign patent documents that were originally published in languages other than English. Machine-generated translations of these documents were utilized to assess their relevance and content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 17:00.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. 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.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights