DETAILEED 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
Claims 1-7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/05/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II claims 8-16 in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Straubel wire is not severed upon exposure to a theoretical value of a predetermined current being reach. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s arguments only focus on a single stated intended use of the frangible conductor breaking as a result of mechanical force and ignores the other instances in which it is taught that the frangible conductor may break during an overcurrent or thermal event such as an overcurrent [0335, 0339, Straubel]. These teachings read on the claimed limitation in which the wire is severed when a predetermined current exceeds a threshold value for a predetermined period of time.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 8-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Straubel (US20090139781A1; filed IDS 08/18/2023).
Regarding claim 8, Straubel discloses a cell assembly comprising: a plurality of cells (14I) arranged within a housing (18I) [0328-0329, fig. 49 Straubel]; and at least one wire bond (12I) electrically connecting each cell of the plurality of cells (14I) to the other cells of the plurality of cells [0328-0339, fig. 49-52, Straubel], wherein each wire bond is selected to conduct current from a respective cell during normal operation and to sever such electrical connection through the wire bond when a predetermined current exceeds a threshold value for a predetermined period of time [0328-0339, Straubel].
Straubel teaches that the wire may break due to various conditions included a predetermined thermal [0328] or overcurrent [0335] event. These thermal means may include but are not limited to an over current, etc [0339].
Regarding claim 9, Straubel teaches the cell assembly, wherein the cells are electrically connected in series [0331, Straubel].
Regarding claim 10, Straubel teaches the cell assembly, wherein a wire bond of one cell connects from a positive terminal of the cell to a negative terminal of an adjacent cell [0224, 0330-0332, fig. 16A, 51, Straubel].
Regarding claim 11, Straubel teaches the cell assembly, wherein the cells are electrically connected in parallel [0331, Straubel].
Regarding claim 12, Straubel teaches the cell assembly, further comprising a collector plate (16I, “conductor”) [0328-0339, fig. 49-50, Straubel], wherein each wire bond is connected to the conductor that electrically connects the plurality of cells [0330-0332, fig. 49-50, Straubel].
Regarding claim 13, Straubel teaches the cell assembly, further comprising an adhesive layer arranged between the conductor and the housing and configured to secure the conductor to the housing [0331, Straubel teaches of using epoxy to connect the collector plate to the housing, this reads on an adhesive layer].
Regarding claim 15, Straubel teaches the cell assembly, further comprising a cell assembly first (“positive”) terminal and a cell assembly second (“negative”) terminal configured to electrically connect to an external electrical device [0465, fig. 93C, Straubel].
Regarding claim 16, Straubel teaches the cell assembly, wherein the at least one wire bond (144A) of each cell is connected at a positive terminal (114A) of the respective cell [0221-0222, Fig. 16a, Straubel], the cell assembly further comprising at least one additional wire bond (142A) configured to attach to a negative terminal (116A) of the respective cells [0221-0222, Fig. 16a, Straubel].
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straubel as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Motokawa (US20170200926A1: filed as WO2016031208A1 in IDS 02/19/2026).
Regarding claim 14, Straubel teaches of a printed circuit board (26J) being located between a housing (28J) and conductor (30J) [0347-0348, fig. 53, Straubel].
Straubel is silent to a stiffening layer arranged between the conductor and the housing and configured to provide stability to the conductor.
However, Motokawa teaches a plurality of battery cells (1) contained by a housing (3) and block holder (17/23) on each end of the cell [0047, 0055, fig. 9, Motokawa]. A reinforcing component (19) made from a glass epoxy resin is placed between the block holder and electrode leads (21/27) and current collectors (13/15) [0054-0058, fig. 9, Motokawa]. Where the reinforcing component is used for reinforcing the strength of the block holder when gas is released from the cell [0059, Motakawa].
The examiner notes that a glass epoxy resin is a stable reinforcing material and as such, when it is placed between a housing and current collector would be able to be configured to provide stability to the conductor.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Straubel such that a reinforcing component, such as a glass epoxy resin was placed between the housing and conduct. Or such that the reinforcing component was incorporated into the PCB layer of Straubel. Doing so can provide additional reinforcing strength the housing as well as reduce the influence of high-temperature gas [0059, Motakawa].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights