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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn in the application.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-15, drawn to a battery module.
Group II, claim(s) 16-20, drawn to method of manufacturing the battery module.
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the battery module in claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Newman et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0296321).
Newman et al. discloses battery module (ref.108, figure 1, para. 0038) comprising: electrochemical cells arranged side by side in an array of multiple rows and columns (figure 2C, para. 0053), the electrochemical cells including terminals that comprise a first terminal at respective first ends of the electrochemical cells and at least portions of second terminals at the respective first ends (figure 12A, para.0057, 0060, 0123); a housing (ref. 212, figure 2A-B) that holds the electrochemical cells (ref. 208, figure 2B), the housing formed by a molding process with a polymer material (plastic, para. 0043); and a planar busbar (internal busbar, ref. 1204 A-D, figure 12A, para. 0057, 0122) extending along the terminals throughout the array (figure 12A, para. 0057, 0060, 0122), the planar busbar joined to the housing without an adhesive between the planar busbar and the housing (para. 0061, 0135).
During a telephone conversation with Mark Bellermann on 04/16/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group-I, a battery module, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 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).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “glass strands within in the” in line 2 appears to be typographical error.
Claim 13 recites “ end busbars” in line 1 and should read “an end busbars”
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: " a poka-yoke pin configured for mounting of the battery module" and "a compression limiter configured for mounting of the battery module" in claims 12 and 13 respectively.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 9 and 12 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 9 recites the limitation “second ends”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claims 1 nor 8 recite any “second ends” of the electrochemical cells. It is unclear if this is on the side or top or at the bottom of the array.
Claim 12 recites the word “type” extends the scope of the expression so as to render it vague and indefinite. It is unclear what "type" of housing was intended to convey. MPEP 2173.05 (b)
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, 4-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman et al. (US PG Pub. 20190296321 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Newman et al. discloses battery module (ref.108, figure 1, para. 0038) comprising: electrochemical cells arranged side by side in an array of multiple rows and columns (figure 2C, para. 0053), the electrochemical cells including terminals that comprise a first terminal at respective first ends of the electrochemical cells and at least portions of second terminals at the respective first ends (figure 12A, para.0057, 0060, 0123); a housing (ref. 212, figure 2A-B) that holds the electrochemical cells (ref. 208, figure 2B), the housing formed by a molding process with a polymer material (plastic, para. 0043); and a planar busbar (internal busbar, ref. 1204 A-D, figure 12A, para. 0057, 0122) extending along the terminals throughout the array (figure 12A, para. 0057, 0060, 0122), the planar busbar joined to the housing without an adhesive between the planar busbar and the housing (para. 0061, 0135).
Regarding claim 4, Newman et al. discloses a battery housing has an essentially rectilinear shape (figure 2A-C) including four side walls that face each other pairwise, and a first end wall perpendicularly adjoining each of the four side walls at a first end of the rectilinear shape (figure 2A-C), wherein the housing does not have a second end wall facing the first end wall at a second end of the rectilinear shape opposite the first end (ref. 212A figure 2C, 7A-C, para. 0068, 0093)
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Newman et al. discloses the planar busbar (internal busbar) comprises coplanar interleaved fingers (ref. 1204A-D, figure 12A, para. 0130)
Regarding claim 6, Newman et al. discloses the first end wall has openings between at least some of the coplanar interleaved fingers (figure 14, para. 0139).
Regarding claim 7, Newman discloses a conductive bond (strips, ref. 1212, figures 12B – 14) extending through at least one of the openings, the conductive bond connecting at least one of the terminals to at least one of the coplanar interleaved fingers (figures 13 and 14, para. 0127).
Regarding claim 8, Newman et al. discloses the array of the electrochemical cells has six sides, and wherein the housing holds the electrochemical cells by enclosing five sides of the six sides of the array (figure 2C, para. 0068, 0093).
Regarding claim 9, Newman et al. discloses a cooling plate (ref. 224, figure 2A-C, para. 0065) abutting respective second ends of the electrochemical cells at the sixth side of the array, the second ends opposite the first ends of the electrochemical cells (figure 7A-C, para. 0093).
Regarding claim 11, Newman et al. discloses the housing is configured so that the planar busbar is exposed only in a direction facing away from the terminals of the electrochemical cells (figure 10A). Newman et al. further discloses the direction facing the terminals will has a cover (ref. 212B, figure 2C) and an upper shield (ref. 204, figure 2A, para. 0066-0067) covering the planar busbar covered (figure 2A).
Regarding claim 12, Newman et al. discloses a foot on an outside of the housing, the foot (ref. 214B, figure 10B, para. 0119) including an indicium (1026A, figure 10B) and a poka-yoke pin (1026B, figure 10B, para. 0119).
Regarding claim 14, The battery module of claim 1, further comprising end busbars (tapered busbar, ref. 220B, figure 14) electrically connected (ref. 1020, figure 14 para. 0141-0142) to the planar busbar (internal busbar, ref. 1204 A-D, figure 12A, 14).
Regarding claim 15, Newman et al discloses the battery module includes multiple planar busbars (internal busbars, ref. 1204A-D, figure 12A, para. 0127) extending along the terminals throughout the array, the multiple planar busbars joined to the housing (figure 13, para. 0135)
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.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US PG Pub 20190296321 A1) in view of Wynn et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0256769)
Newman et al. is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 2, Newman et al. fails to disclose the planar busbar comprises of aluminum and the polymer material comprises polycarbonate.
Wynn et al. discloses a battery module (ref. 1300, figure 13) comprising of a plurality of batteries where each battery includes both a first terminal and a second terminal accessible at a first end portion of the battery and a plurality of bus bars (para. 0006). Wynn et al. further discloses the housing (ref. 705, figure 8, para. 0051) that holds the electrochemical cells can be fabricated by molding and preferably made of a polymer like polycarbonate (para. 0051) and the planar busbar (ref. 1301, figure 13-15) comprises of aluminum (para. 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to use busbar made of aluminum and the housing made of polycarbonate as taught by Wynn et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use polymer like polycarbonate for the housing due to its electrically insulating property and use a material like aluminum for busbar for its electrically conductive property.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (US PG Pub. 20190296321 A1) in view of Wynn et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0256769) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US PG PUB 2012/0121956 A1).
Newman et al. and Wynn et al. are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 3, Newman et al. fails to disclose a battery module where in the polymer material further comprises glass strands within the polycarbonate.
Park et al. discloses a battery module having a plurality of battery of batteries (ref. 31, figure 3, abstract). Park et al. further discloses the housing is formed of a polymer (engineering plastic, para. 0017, 0059) and a reinforcing fiber. Park et al. further discloses the polymer may be include polycarbonate (para. 0018) and glass strands (glass fiber, para. 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to add glass strands within the polycarbonate as taught by Park et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate glass strands to the polymer material of the housing to enhance the strength of the housing.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al (US PG Pub. 2019/0296321 A1) in view of Iqbal et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0241019).
Newman et al. is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 13, Newman et al. fails to disclose the foot is further provided with a compression limiter configured for mounting of the battery module.
Iqbal et al. discloses a battery module (traction battery pack, ref. 14, figure 2) assembly comprising of the lid (ref. 70, figure 3 and 5), a tray (ref. 74, figure 3 and 5) and an open area (ref. 64, figure 3) housing one or plurality of battery arrays (para. 0045-0046). Iqbal et al. further discloses the lid (ref. 70, figure 4) has a foot (peripheral flange, ref. 84 figure 4) on the outside of the housing (para. 0049). Iqbal et al. further discloses the foot (peripheral flange, ref. 84, figure 4) have compression limiters (ref. 110, figure 4, para. 0057) distributed on the foot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to add a compression limiter to the foot on the outside of the housing as taught by Iqbal et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate a compression limiter to the foot on the outside of the housing to protect the battery enclosure from contaminants entering the interior.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788 4/23/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights