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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 2/20/2024 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 02/20/2024 were received and are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Battery Pack Comprising Plurality of Bus Bar Plates.
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 1-15 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The intended use of the term “different” in claim 1 is not clear to the examiner. The examiner is unsure if each of the busbars designated to be in a first group can no longer be present in a second group, thus the groups being completely different from one another, or if there is allowed some overlap between which busbars are designated across both groups. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For purpose of examination, so long as the at least one busbar is not present in both groups, the prior art will read on “different.”
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 recite the limitation "the same side" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (U.S. 20190001838).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second stack)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First stack)][AltContent: textbox (Second direction)][AltContent: textbox (First direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
852
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Mukasa discloses a battery pack (not shown) ([0024]) comprising:
a first stack (labeled) and a second stack (labeled) each including a plurality of battery cells (4) arranged side by side in a first direction (labeled) (Fig. 3 – above);
a case (not shown) that accommodates the first stack and the second stack ([0024]);
a plurality of bus bars (26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34 – electrode connection portions) that electrically connect the plurality of battery cells (4) (Fig. 3; [0034-0035]);
a first plate (29 – long connecting portion) on which a first group of the plurality of bus bars (26, 27, 28) is mounted (Fig. 3); and
a second plate (35 – long connecting part) on which a second group of the plurality of bus bars (32, 33, 34) is mounted (Fig. 3), the second plate (35) being separated from the first plate (29) (Fig. 3), the second group (32-34) being different from the first group (26-28) (Fig. 3), wherein
each of the first plate (29) and the second plate (35) extends along a second direction (labeled) orthogonal to the first direction (labeled) so as to reach the second stack (labeled) from the first stack (labeled) (Fig. 3 – above), and
the first plate (29) and the second plate (35) are arranged side by side along the first direction (labeled) (Fig. 3 – above).
With respect to claim 2, Mukasa discloses the plurality of battery cells (4) included in the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) (battery cells “N”; Fig. 1) are electrically connected in series by the plurality of bus bars (Figs. 1 and 3; [0008]), and
a positive-electrode-side collective terminal (19 – external connection part) and a negative-electrode-side collective terminal (20 – external connection part) of the plurality of battery cells (4) connected in series are located on the same side with respect to the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the second direction (labeled) (Fig. 3).
While it is noted by the examiner that it is not explicitly stated which collective terminal between parts 19 and 20 is positive and which is negative, the prior art clearly discloses that the collective terminals (19 and 20) are used for “taking out power,” which is inherently known in the art to require both a positive and negative terminal. Further, as this limitation appears several times throughout the claim set, this acknowledgement of inherent positive and negative collective terminals will apply to the remainder of the rejection.
With respect to claim 3, Mukasa discloses each of the first group (26-28) and the second group (32-34) of the plurality of bus bars includes a bus bar (27, 33) that connects a battery cell (4) included in the first stack (left) to a battery cell included in the second stack (right) (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 4, Mukasa discloses the plurality of battery cells (4) included in the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) (battery cells “N”; Fig. 1) are electrically connected in series by the plurality of bus bars (Figs. 1 and 3; [0008]), and
a positive-electrode-side collective terminal (19 – external connection part) and a negative-electrode-side collective terminal (20 – external connection part) of the plurality of battery cells (4) connected in series are located on the same side with respect to the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the second direction (labeled) (Fig. 3) and
each of the first group (26-28) and the second group (32-34) of the plurality of bus bars includes a bus bar (27, 33) that connects a battery cell (4) included in the first stack (left) to a battery cell included in the second stack (right) (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 9, Mukasa discloses each of the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) includes even and same number of battery cells (4) (Fig. 3), and
widths of the first plate (29) and the second plate (35) in the first direction (labeled) are the same (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 13, Mukasa discloses the case (not shown) supports the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the first direction (labeled) (Fig. 3; [0024]). Although not shown, Mukasa clearly discloses that the case “houses the battery modules,” thus providing support inherently as it surrounds the modules.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukasa as applied to claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, Mukasa discloses that each of the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) includes even and same number of battery cells when looking at the figures (Fig. 3), however Mukasa explicitly states that the number of battery cells in the first direction (N) can be any number of 2 or more ([0007]). Thus, an odd number of battery cells is clearly disclosed by Mukasa.
Mukasa does not disclose the widths of the first plate and second plate are different from each other. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, changing the width of one of the bus bar plates so that it’s different from the other does not change the performance of the bus bars or the bus bar plates themselves, as they are still used to connect terminals of battery cells. Therefore, the recitation of dimensions of their widths is not patentable.
Claim(s) 5-8, 10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukasa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogasawara et al. (U.S. 20120164509).
With respect to claim 5, Mukasa discloses a first and second group of busbars, but does not disclose a first and second connector connected to each group of busbars via voltage detection lines.
Ogasawara discloses a plurality of busbars (3) for connecting battery cells (20) (Fig. 1; [0039]) and teaches the busbars (3) are connected to a connector (8) via wires (5) which act as voltage detection lines ([0039]). Ogasawara further teaches that this arrangement allows for the cells to be connected to a voltage detection circuit (not shown) to detect a voltage of the batteries ([abstract]; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the connector and voltage detection lines disclosed by Ogasawara to the battery pack disclosed by Mukasa in order for the cells to be connected to a voltage detection circuit to detect a voltage of the batteries.
It is noted by the examiner that Ogasawara does not disclose two connectors for two different sets of bus bars, as Ogasawara only had a single set of bus bars. However, Mukasa has already been relied upon to read upon two groups of busbars (see above rejection of claim 1). Further, applicant is reminded that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced,” (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this instance, since the first and second groups of bus bars are already present in Mukasa, duplicating the connector and voltage detection lines taught by Ogasawara to connect to both sets of bus bars would no product a new or unexpected result, as the duplication would just allow for the second group of bus bars to be connected to the voltage detection circuit, which is the identical purpose of the first connector and first voltage detection lines.
It is noted that claims 6-8, 10, 12, and 14-15 all include the identical limitations of a first and second connection with voltage detection lines connected to the plurality of either the first group or the second group of bus bars. For simplicity, each rejection will contain a note to reference the above rejection of claim 5 for the examination of these limitations, rather than rewriting the obviousness rationale for each claim.
With respect to claim 6, modified Mukasa discloses the plurality of battery cells (4) included in the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) (battery cells “N”; Fig. 1) are electrically connected in series by the plurality of bus bars (Figs. 1 and 3; [0008]), and
a positive-electrode-side collective terminal (19 – external connection part) and a negative-electrode-side collective terminal (20 – external connection part) of the plurality of battery cells (4) connected in series are located on the same side with respect to the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the second direction (labeled) (Fig. 3).
The rationale for the rejection of the first and second connector and voltage detection lines can be found in the above rejection of claim 5 relying on Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 7, modified Mukasa discloses each of the first group (26-28) and the second group (32-34) of the plurality of bus bars includes a bus bar (27, 33) that connects a battery cell (4) included in the first stack (left) to a battery cell included in the second stack (right) (Fig. 4).
The rationale for the rejection of the first and second connector and voltage detection lines can be found in the above rejection of claim 5 relying on Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 8, modified Mukasa discloses the plurality of battery cells (4) included in the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) (battery cells “N”; Fig. 1) are electrically connected in series by the plurality of bus bars (Figs. 1 and 3; [0008]), and
a positive-electrode-side collective terminal (19 – external connection part) and a negative-electrode-side collective terminal (20 – external connection part) of the plurality of battery cells (4) connected in series are located on the same side with respect to the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the second direction (labeled) (Fig. 3) and
each of the first group (26-28) and the second group (32-34) of the plurality of bus bars includes a bus bar (27, 33) that connects a battery cell (4) included in the first stack (left) to a battery cell included in the second stack (right) (Fig. 4).
The rationale for the rejection of the first and second connector and voltage detection lines can be found in the above rejection of claim 5 relying on Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 10, modified Mukasa discloses the plurality of battery cells (4) included in the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) (battery cells “N”; Fig. 1) are electrically connected in series by the plurality of bus bars (Figs. 1 and 3; [0008]), and
a positive-electrode-side collective terminal (19 – external connection part) and a negative-electrode-side collective terminal (20 – external connection part) of the plurality of battery cells (4) connected in series are located on the same side with respect to the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the second direction (labeled) (Fig. 3) and
each of the first group (26-28) and the second group (32-34) of the plurality of bus bars includes a bus bar (27, 33) that connects a battery cell (4) included in the first stack (left) to a battery cell included in the second stack (right) (Fig. 4),
each of the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) includes even and same number of battery cells (4) (Fig. 3), and
widths of the first plate (29) and the second plate (35) in the first direction (labeled) are the same (Fig. 3).
The rationale for the rejection of the first and second connector and voltage detection lines can be found in the above rejection of claim 5 relying on Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 12, modified Mukasa discloses the plurality of battery cells (4) included in the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) (battery cells “N”; Fig. 1) are electrically connected in series by the plurality of bus bars (Figs. 1 and 3; [0008]), and
a positive-electrode-side collective terminal (19 – external connection part) and a negative-electrode-side collective terminal (20 – external connection part) of the plurality of battery cells (4) connected in series are located on the same side with respect to the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the second direction (labeled) (Fig. 3) and
each of the first group (26-28) and the second group (32-34) of the plurality of bus bars includes a bus bar (27, 33) that connects a battery cell (4) included in the first stack (left) to a battery cell included in the second stack (right) (Fig. 4),
each of the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) includes even and same number of battery cells when looking at the figures (Fig. 3), however Mukasa explicitly states that the number of battery cells in the first direction (N) can be any number of 2 or more ([0007]). Thus, an odd number of battery cells is clearly disclosed by Mukasa.
Mukasa does not disclose the widths of the first plate and second plate are different from each other. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, changing the width of one of the bus bar plates so that its different from the other does not change the performance of the bus bars or the bus bar plates themselves, as they are still used to connect terminals of battery cells. Therefore, the recitation of dimensions of their widths is not patentable.
The rationale for the rejection of the first and second connector and voltage detection lines can be found in the above rejection of claim 5 relying on Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 14, modified Mukasa discloses the plurality of battery cells (4) included in the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) (battery cells “N”; Fig. 1) are electrically connected in series by the plurality of bus bars (Figs. 1 and 3; [0008]), and
a positive-electrode-side collective terminal (19 – external connection part) and a negative-electrode-side collective terminal (20 – external connection part) of the plurality of battery cells (4) connected in series are located on the same side with respect to the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the second direction (labeled) (Fig. 3) and
each of the first group (26-28) and the second group (32-34) of the plurality of bus bars includes a bus bar (27, 33) that connects a battery cell (4) included in the first stack (left) to a battery cell included in the second stack (right) (Fig. 4),
each of the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) includes even and same number of battery cells (4) (Fig. 3),
widths of the first plate (29) and the second plate (35) in the first direction (labeled) are the same (Fig. 3), and
the case (not shown) supports the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the first direction (labeled) (Fig. 3; [0024]). Although not shown, Mukasa clearly discloses that the case “houses the battery modules,” thus providing support inherently as it surrounds the modules.
The rationale for the rejection of the first and second connector and voltage detection lines can be found in the above rejection of claim 5 relying on Ogasawara.
With respect to claim 15, modified Mukasa discloses the plurality of battery cells (4) included in the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) (battery cells “N”; Fig. 1) are electrically connected in series by the plurality of bus bars (Figs. 1 and 3; [0008]), and
a positive-electrode-side collective terminal (19 – external connection part) and a negative-electrode-side collective terminal (20 – external connection part) of the plurality of battery cells (4) connected in series are located on the same side with respect to the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the second direction (labeled) (Fig. 3) and
each of the first group (26-28) and the second group (32-34) of the plurality of bus bars includes a bus bar (27, 33) that connects a battery cell (4) included in the first stack (left) to a battery cell included in the second stack (right) (Fig. 4),
each of the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) includes even and same number of battery cells when looking at the figures (Fig. 3), however Mukasa explicitly states that the number of battery cells in the first direction (N) can be any number of 2 or more ([0007]). Thus, an odd number of battery cells is clearly disclosed by Mukasa, and
the case (not shown) supports the first stack (labeled) and the second stack (labeled) in the first direction (labeled) (Fig. 3; [0024]). Although not shown, Mukasa clearly discloses that the case “houses the battery modules,” thus providing support inherently as it surrounds the modules.
Mukasa does not disclose the widths of the first plate and second plate are different from each other. However, applicant is reminded that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this instance, changing the width of one of the bus bar plates so that its different from the other does not change the performance of the bus bars or the bus bar plates themselves, as they are still used to connect terminals of battery cells. Therefore, the recitation of dimensions of their widths is not patentable.
The rationale for the rejection of the first and second connector and voltage detection lines can be found in the above rejection of claim 5 relying on Ogasawara.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights