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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the phrase "at least one part of an underside of , there appears to be a grammatical error at “is touched”, perhaps missing a preposition thereafter. Appropriate correction is required. (Dependent claims are similarly objected to for encompassing the limitations of claim 1.)
Claim 2 is objected to for a similar informality in its recitation of “is touched”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is unclear whether “a bind bar” as recited in line 3 of claim 10 is the same or different than “a bind bar” introduced in line 2 of claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Per instant specification [0012], the recitation of “tapped holes” in claim 3 is being interpreted to mean “through holes”. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer per MPEP 2111.01 IV.
To promote compact prosecution, “a bind bar” as recited in line 3 of claim 10 is interpreted to refer to the same feature as “a bind bar” introduced in line 2 of claim 10.
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) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hermann et al. (US 2016/0218401 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hermann teaches a battery pack (100; Figs. 1, 3, and 10) comprising:
a housing including a main body (125, Fig. 10) and internally defining a battery storage room (cells 102 inside housing 125, Fig. 9);
a plurality of prismatic batteries disposed in rows in the battery storage room with each of the rows including two or more of the plurality of prismatic batteries (two rows of cells 102, Fig. 3), the two or more of the plurality of prismatic batteries being disposed in substantially parallel relation with widthwise extending side faces of the two or more of the plurality of prismatic batteries being aligned in a direction along a depth of each of the two or more of the plurality of prismatic batteries (cells 102 parallel with one another within each row in stacking direction, Fig. 3); and
a plurality of bus bars (112, Fig. 4) forming a plurality of parallel battery structures that each have parallel connection of two or more of the plurality of prismatic batteries (electrochemical cells 102 interconnected in parallel in each of multiple groups, [0110] – see annotation of Figs. 1 and 3 below), the plurality of bus bars electrically connecting the plurality of prismatic batteries to connect the plurality of parallel battery structures in series (the multiple groups then interconnected in series thereby forming a “parallel first, series second” type of configuration, [0110]),
wherein
the plurality of parallel battery structures connected in series form a battery connection structure (interface module 110 including multiple bus bars 112, Figs. 1 and 4) that includes a turn causing a reversal of direction of series connection of the plurality of parallel battery structures (connection of first versus second terminals 104 and 106, at centralized bus bars 112 – Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 1, see annotations below),
the housing includes a lid abutting an upper end face of the main body in a direction along a height of the main body (150 at top face, Figs. 7 and 10), and
at least one part of an underside of the lid is touched [to] upper surfaces of the plurality of bus bars through an insulating member (underside of 150 touches bus bars 112 through 111, Fig. 7; base 111 is made from an electrically insulating material, [0073]).
PNG
media_image1.png
861
999
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
916
1020
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein: the plurality of bus bars include an elongated bus bar that is included in the turn (relatively long and thin bus bar 112 among plurality of 112s, Fig. 1) and electrically connects a plurality of electrode terminals aligned in the direction along the depth (connects terminals 106, Figs. 1 in view of 3); the elongated bus bar includes an inter-electrode part positioned between a negative electrode terminal and a positive electrode terminal of the plurality of electrode terminals aligned in the direction along the depth (between opposite-polarity terminal 106 and 104 in thickness direction; the same bus bar may be connected to the first terminal of one cell and the second terminal of another cell per [0110]); and at least one part of the underside of the lid is touched the inter-electrode part (underside of 150 touches various 112 via 111, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein: a bind bar extending in the direction along the depth (Spacing elements 101 may be configured to continuously contact side walls of electrochemical cells 102, [0066] and Fig. 7 into depth/stacking direction between the two rows of cells); and a combination of a bind bar, an insulating one-side separator touching one side face of the bind bar, and an insulating opposite-side separator touching an opposite side face of the bind bar (Spacing elements 101 may be made from various types of flexible materials, such as foam, elastic materials … spacing elements 101 may be used to thermal insulate adjacent electrochemical cells 102, [0066-0067]) is held between a widthwise adjoining pair of the plurality of prismatic batteries (spacing elements 101 are disposed between each pair of adjacent cells 102, [0066] and Fig. 7 – widthwise being horizontal in Fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Hermann et al. (US 2016/0218401 A1) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein: the main body includes a recess (into which cells 102 are placed in 125, Figs. 9-10), the recess including only an upper opening in a direction along a height of the main body (Fig. 10 and [0065]); the lid closes the upper opening (150 closes 125, Figs. 9-10); but fails to explicitly teach: the upper end face of the main body includes tapped holes that are provided along a periphery of the upper end face of the main body.
However, Hermann does teach holes 124a which are screwing holes on the end frame 124 of the overall battery enclosure ([0064] and Fig. 9) and teaches that housing member 125 is also part of the enclosure which seals and protects electrochemical/battery cells 102 therein ([0064]). Hermann teaches in [0074] toward the interface module and thermal control module/lid 150 together serve as the top cover to seal in the cells 102, and shows in Figs. 9-11 what appear to be additional screw holes within the lid 150 and housing member/main body 125 along aligned along its uppermost peripheral edges (see below of Fig. 11). Such reads on the instant limitation of “the upper end face of the main body includes tapped holes that are provided along a periphery of the upper end face of the main body”.
PNG
media_image3.png
852
985
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, from the above teachings, to use the screw holes and screws connection technique taught by Hermann [0064] to also ensure proper connection and sealing between the lid and the periphery housing main body as desired by Hermann [0074] to join 150/110 to 125 and expectedly protect the cells 102 therein.
Thereby, claim 3 is met by Hermann.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Hermann et al. (US 2016/0218401 A1) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach the underside of the lid includes: an upper underside part, a lower underside part that is in a lower position along a height than the upper underside part, and a step connecting an edge of the lower underside part and the upper underside part.
However, Hermann does teach an embodiment in [0074] where interface module 110 is operable as a cover of battery pack 100. Hermann shows in Fig. 7 where 110 includes an upper underside part (abutting bus bars 112), a lower underside part that is in a lower position along a height than the upper underside part (abutting tops of cells 102), and a step connecting an edge of the lower underside part and the upper underside part (vertically stepped portions of 110).
Changes in shape and rearrangement of parts are obvious design choices per MPEP 214404 IV B and VI C, such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the thermal control module 150 in combination with interface module 110 acting as the cover/lid of the battery pack could be designed to take the shape of 110 including the upper and lower underside parts and step part as claimed and still function as desired to cover and seal the battery cells 102 therein.
Thereby, claim 4 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and wherein: the upper end face of the main body is located above the lower underside part (part of 110 touching 112 is above the part of 110 touching 102, Hermann Fig. 7) in a height direction of the plurality of prismatic batteries (vertically in Hermann Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and wherein: at least one part of the lower underside part is located above an upper face of each prismatic battery of the plurality of prismatic batteries in a height direction of the plurality of prismatic batteries (entire underside of 110 is above cells 102 in vertical direction of Hermann Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and wherein an entirety of the lower underside part is located above an upper face of each prismatic battery of the plurality of prismatic batteries in a height direction of the plurality of prismatic batteries ((entire underside of 110 is above cells 102 in vertical direction of Hermann Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Hermann et al. (US 2016/0218401 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Komazawa (US 20120129041 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 4 above but fails to teach further comprising a fastening member fastening at least one part of the lower underside part and the plurality of bus bars together.
Hermann does teach flexible connectors 109 pushing 112 upwards toward upper underside of 110 (Fig. 7).
Komazawa is analogous in the art of bus bars and teaches a battery pack (cell holder 4) lid (bus-bar cover 8) having a lower underside (underside of border of 8, Fig. 2) fastened to a bus bar (bus-bar plate 7, Fig. 2; module bus bar 402, Fig. 4C) by a fastening member (bolt 106 as fastening member through collar 101, per [0040] and Figs. 2 and 4C). Komazawa [0035] teaches lid 8 protecting the top of the battery module and teaches in [0048, 0051] bus bar 402 is tightly secured with the bolt-nut fastening technique.
Use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness per MPEP 2143 I C, such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the fastening member (bolt into nut) technique taught by Komazawa to modify Hermann to ensure stable fixation of the protective lid lower underside part to the bus bars.
Thereby, claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Hermann et al. (US 2016/0218401 A1) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20110076521 A1, cited in the 03/20/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 7 above but fails to teach the upper end face of the main body is located above the upper face of each prismatic battery of the plurality of prismatic batteries in a height direction of the plurality of prismatic batteries.
Shimizu is analogous in the art of prismatic battery packs and teaches an upper end face of a housing main body (upper surface of upper case peripheral wall 18, Shimizu Figs. 9 and 11) is located above an upper face of each prismatic battery of a plurality of prismatic batteries (upper surface of 18a above upper surface of cells 12, Figs. 9 and 11) in a height direction of the plurality of prismatic batteries within the battery pack (vertically, Figs. 9 and 11). Such creates vertical spacing within the housing above the battery cells, and below a lid (top cover 20 in Fig. 9), to serve as bus bar equipment rooms to accommodate a plurality of bus bars and support ribs held within the casing above the cells (per Shimizu [0062-0074] and Figs. 9-10).
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack housing main body of Hermann to extend upwardly above the upper face of the battery cells therein and include support ribs as taught by Shimizu with the motivation of creating space for accommodating the bus bars and additional support ribs.
Thus, the instant claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 – and 2, 3, 5, and 10 – are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – and 3, 2, 4, and 5 respectively – of U.S. Patent No. US 11,967,690 B2 (the ‘690 Patent) in view of Hermann (US 2016/0218401 A1, as cited in 35 USC 102 section above). While this ‘690 Patent is from the parent application (16/638,953) of the instant application, the prohibition (of 35 USC 121 regarding use of parent applications as double patenting rejection grounds of divisional applications) does not apply where the divisional application was voluntarily filed by the applicant and not in response to an Office requirement for restriction (as is the instant case, since 16/638,953 was not subject to a restriction).
The ’690 Patent claim 1 encompasses all subject matter of instant claim 7 (including instant base claims 1 and 4) with the exception of the limitation “at least one part of an underside of the lid is touched upper surfaces of the plurality of bus bars through an insulating member”, which is the final clause of instant claim 1. (See below for obviousness-type rejection.)
The ’690 Patent claim 1 encompasses all subject matter of instant claim 9 (including instant base claims 1 and 4) with the exception of the limitation “at least one part of an underside of the lid is touched upper surfaces of the plurality of bus bars through an insulating member”, which is the final clause of instant claim 1. (See below for obviousness-type rejection.)
Regarding said limitation of “at least one part of an underside of the lid is touched upper surfaces of the plurality of bus bars through an insulating member”, which is the final clause of instant claim 1 (see above): Hermann is analogous in the art of prismatic battery packs, similarly teaching two rows of cells (102, Hermann Fig. 7) held within an outer case (125, Hermann Fig. 10) and teaches bus bars atop the cells (112, Fig. 1) and beneath the underside of a cover (150, Figs. 7 and 10). Hermann further teaches at least one part of an underside of the lid is touched [to] upper surfaces of the plurality of bus bars through an insulating member (underside of 150 touches bus bars 112 through 111, Fig. 7; base 111 is made from an electrically insulating material, [0073]). Hermann teaches in [0017] that such base material mechanically supports the bus bars and is electrically insulating to allow different bus bar to operate at different potentials, since the electrically insulating material has a sufficiently high electrical resistivity and a sufficiently high dielectric strength to maintain adjacent bus bars at different potential for given applications.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery pack of the ‘690 Patent with the insulating member intervening between the lid underside and the plurality of bus bars as taught by Hermann with the motivation of achieving support of bus bars and the ability of the bus bars to operate at different potentials.
Thus, the instant claim limitation “at least one part of an underside of the lid is touched upper surfaces of the plurality of bus bars through an insulating member” is rendered obvious.
Instant claim 2 is read upon by claim 3 of the ‘690 Patent, in view of Hermann per the above modification.
Instant claim 3 is read upon by claim 2 of the ‘690 Patent, in view of Hermann per the above modification.
Instant claim 5 is read upon by claim 4 of the ‘690 Patent, in view of Hermann per the above modification.
Instant claim 10 is read upon by claim 5 of the ‘690 Patent, in view of Hermann per the above modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Endo et al. (US 20130216874 A1) teaches two rows of prismatic cells 12 within housing main body 11 (Fig. 1) with bus bars 13 atop cells 12 (Fig. 1), and teaches intervening substrate 14 between bus bars 13 and uppermost/lid portion 13 of the outer case (Fig. 1) which is coated with insulating material ([0004]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728