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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/30/2026 has been entered. The objections to claims 1-2 and 10 are overcome and are withdrawn. The double patenting rejection is maintained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. While the arguments overcome the 35 USC 102 rejections, 35 USC 103 rejections are still made below. Regarding the subject matter of claim 4 moved into claim 1, the rejection of record of similar subject matter of claim 4 is still applicable below. Regarding the new limitation in claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., "an insulating member provided as a separate member from the lid and disposed on at least one of the plurality of bus bars") was not yet recited in the rejected claim(s) as of the previous rejection (the 01/07/2026 non-final). New grounds of rejection below are necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been considered and are persuasive, regarding the previously applied interpretation/mapping of Hermann to amended claim 1 in the 05/15/2026 Office action, specifically in regards to the lid and separate insulating member. Arguments against the Kim secondary reference are considered moot as Kim is no longer relied upon in the updated rejection below. For this reason and in light of the Pre-Appeal Bried Conference decision, prosecution is being reopened at Final (after the 1/7/26 non-final). Finality of the prior Office action is withdrawn, and the present Office action (rejections below) is now made Final based on the prior amendment of record.
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.
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) 1-3, 6-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Hermann et al. (US 2016/0218401 A1, cited in 01/07/2026 Office action) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2016/0093864 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 a lid (interface module 110 is operable as a cover of battery pack 100, [0074]; interface module 110 includes base 111, [0059]) and internally defines a battery storage room (cells 102 inside housing 125 and under 110, 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]); and
wherein
the plurality of parallel battery structures connected in series form a battery connection structure (multiple bus bars 112 connected to interface module 110 including connecting portion 118 for connecting to control module 12 , [0059] and 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),
an underside of the lid includes an upper underside part (where 111 of 110 abuts bus bars 112, Fig. 7), a lower underside part that is located at a lower height than the upper underside part (where 111 of 110 abuts tops of cells 102, Fig. 7), and a step connecting the lower underside part and the upper underside part (vertically stepped portions of 110/111, Fig. 7),
PNG
media_image1.png
861
999
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
916
1020
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hermann fails to explicitly teach:
an insulating member provided as a separate member from the lid and disposed on at least one of the plurality of bus bars,
at least one part of the underside of the lid is in contact with at least one of the plurality of bus bars through the insulating member.
However, Hermann does teach base 111 as an insulating member ([0073, 0083]) disposed on the tops of bus bars 112 ([0085] and Fig. 7), and teaches that base 111 (of cover 110) can be a composite having a polymer and thermally conductive filler ([0083-0084]). Therefore, Hermann welcomes 110 (made of base 111) as having at two distinct components.
Nakamura is analogous in the art of battery packs and teaches
an insulating member (an insulating laminate portion 7, [0074]) provided as a separate member from the lid (a cover 81, [0073] and Fig. 3) and disposed on at least one of the plurality of bus bars (the insulating laminate portion 7 is laminated on the bus bars 6, [0077] and Figs. 3-4),
at least one part of the underside of the lid is in contact with at least one of the plurality of bus bars through the insulating member (cover 81 of housing 8 and projecting portion 65 of bus bar 6 sandwich the elongated portion 75 of insulating laminate 7 therebetween, Fig. 3 and [0080-0081]; cover 81 presses the insulating laminate portion 7 and the elongated portions 75 surrounding the bus bar module 2, [0100]).
Nakamura teaches such configuration prevents abrasions of the insulating layer ([0080]), prevents leakage of gas ([0079-0080]) by ensuring high sealing performance ([0097]), ensures tight fitting without a gap ([0081]), and prevents deformation of bus bars at their upper surfaces due to pressure from lid/cover ([0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hermann to include a separate insulating member disposed between the lid and bus bars, atop the bus bars and intervening where lid would touch bus bars, in order to achieve these benefits of abrasion prevention, improves sealing, gas leak prevention, and bus bar deformation prevention, as taught toward by Nakamura.
Thus, the instant claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and Hermann further teaches 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 in contact with the inter-electrode part (underside of 111/110 touches 112, Fig. 7) through the insulating part (Hermann [0084] welcomes composite 111 including insulating component, and as modified in view of Nakamura above to include insulating laminate between bus bar and underside of lid – see Nakamura Fig. 3 as cited above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and Hermann further teaches 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 (interface module 110 may seal electrochemical cells 102 within battery pack 100, [0074]); 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 110 serving as the top cover to seal in the cells 102, and shows in Figs. 9-11 what appear to be additional screw holes aligned along its uppermost peripheral edges (see below of Fig. 11). Hermann teaches that the interface module 110 (i.e., lid) may be also physically attached to various enclosure components of battery pack 100, such as end frames 124 or housing member 125 ([0076]). 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, 0076] to join 110 to 125 and expectedly seal/protect the cells 102 within.
Thereby, claim 3 is met by Hermann.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above Hermann further teaches 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, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and Hermann further teaches 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, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and Hermann further teaches 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).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and Hermann further teaches 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, Hermann [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, Hermann [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, Hermann [0066] and Fig. 7 – widthwise being horizontal in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and Hermann further teaches the lid abuts an upper end face of the main body in a direction along a height of the main body (110 abuts top of 125 in height direction, Hermann Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, wherein Nakamura further teaches the insulating member insulates between the lid and at least one of the plurality of bus bars (insulating laminate 7 portion 75 insulated between distal end 65 of bus bar 6 and flange portion of cover/lid 81 as shown in Nakamura Fig. 3 and explained in [0079-0081]), but fails to explicitly teach the lower underside part of the lid has electrical conductivity.
However, Nakamura teaches in [0044, 0099] the bus bars 6 being conductive and the laminate portion 7 being insulating and restraining both upper and lower surfaces of bus bars 6. Nakamura’s teaching in [0099-0100] and Fig. 3 of a 75 portion of the insulating laminate being elongated where the bus bar is pressed by cover 81 implies that the direct conductive contact between the bus bar and the cover/lid is undesirable, such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the lid – like the bus bars – is made of a conductive material such that the insulating material serves to prevent contact therebetween. Hermann further teaches in [0006] that conductive components of the interface module are formed from metal, such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select metal to form electrically conductive parts of the interface module (which serves as the lid per Hermann [0074]) while ensuring insulation at necessary locations as taught toward by Hermann [0084] as well as the Nakamura teachings explained above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Hermann et al. (US 2016/0218401 A1, cited in 01/07/2026 Office action) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2016/0093864 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Komazawa (US 2012/0129041 A1, cited in 01/07/2026 Office action).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 1 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, cited in 01/07/2026 Office action) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2016/0093864 A1) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2011/0076521 A1, cited in the 03/20/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 7 above but fails to teach an 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, 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” below) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2016/0093864 A1, as cited in 35 USC 103 section above).
While the ‘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) with the exception of the limitations “an insulating member provided as a separate member from the lid and disposed on at least one of the plurality of bus bars … at least one part of the underside of the lid is in contact with at least one of the plurality of bus bars through the insulating member”, within 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) with the exception of the limitations “an insulating member provided as a separate member from the lid and disposed on at least one of the plurality of bus bars … at least one part of the underside of the lid is in contact with at least one of the plurality of bus bars through the insulating member”, within instant claim 1. (See below for obviousness-type rejection.)
Regarding said limitations of: “an insulating member provided as a separate member from the lid and disposed on at least one of the plurality of bus bars … at least one part of the underside of the lid is in contact with at least one of the plurality of bus bars through the insulating member”, Nakamura is analogous in the art of battery packs and teaches
an insulating member (an insulating laminate portion 7, [0074]) provided as a separate member from the lid (a cover 81, [0073] and Fig. 3) and disposed on at least one of the plurality of bus bars (the insulating laminate portion 7 is laminated on the bus bars 6, [0077] and Figs. 3-4),
at least one part of the underside of the lid is in contact with at least one of the plurality of bus bars through the insulating member (cover 81 of housing 8 and projecting portion 65 of bus bar 6 sandwich the elongated portion 75 of insulating laminate 7 therebetween, Fig. 3 and [0080-0081]; cover 81 presses the insulating laminate portion 7 and the elongated portions 75 surrounding the bus bar module 2, [0100]).
Nakamura teaches such configuration prevents abrasions of the insulating layer ([0080]), prevents leakage of gas ([0079-0080]) by ensuring high sealing performance ([0097]), ensures tight fitting without a gap ([0081]), and prevents deformation of bus bars at their upper surfaces due to pressure from lid/cover ([0100]).
Therefore, 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 to include a separate insulating member disposed between the lid and bus bars, atop the bus bars and intervening where lid would touch bus bars, in order to achieve these benefits of abrasion prevention, improves sealing, gas leak prevention, and bus bar deformation prevention, as taught toward by Nakamura.
Instant claim 2 is read upon by claim 3 of the ‘690 Patent, in view of Nakamura per the above modification.
Instant claim 3 is read upon by claim 2 of the ‘690 Patent, in view of Nakamura and Kim per the above modification.
Instant claim 5 is read upon by claim 4 of the ‘690 Patent, in view of Nakamura and Kim per the above modification.
Instant claim 10 is read upon by claim 5 of the ‘690 Patent, in view of Nakamura and Kim per the above modification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights