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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann et al. (US 20140342212), hereinafter Goesmann, in view of Newman et al. (US 20190296310), hereinafter Newman.
Regarding claim 1, Goesmann teaches:
A busbar interconnect for electrically connecting cell terminals of battery cells in a battery pack, the busbar interconnect comprising ([0005]):
a plurality of busbars arranged in a matrix having multiple rows and multiple columns of the bus bars, each bus bar including a first mating end for mating with the corresponding cell terminal of the corresponding battery cell and a second mating end for mating with the adjacent cell terminal of the adjacent corresponding battery cell, the busbars electrically connecting the battery cells in the battery pack ([0005]);
a busbar carrier holding each of the busbars in the matrix, the busbar carrier includes a molded body formed around each of the busbars holding relative positions of the busbars, the molded body including frame members holding corresponding busbars ([0007]).
Goesmann fails to teach the frame members are structural foam elements.
Newmann teaches the frame members are structural foam elements ([0034-0037]).
Goesmann and Newman are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the injection-molded plastic carrier of Goesmann to utilize the structural-foam construction of Newman because this would d be a simple substitution of one known molded structural material for another to achieve the predictable benefits of reduced weight while maintaining structural support and insulation.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman, and in further view of Sohag et al. (US 20210408514), hereinafter Sohag.
Regarding claim 2, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach the molded body is overmolded in situ over portions of the busbars to encase the portions of the busbars in the corresponding frame members.
Sohag teaches the molded body is overmolded in situ over portions of the busbars to encase the portions of the busbars in the corresponding frame members ([0034]).
Goesmann, Newman, and Sohag are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to incorporate Sohag’s dielectric overmolding because this would be a simple substitution of a known busbar-retention and insulation technique for separately positioning the busbars within the carrier. Overmolding the dielectric material onto portions of the busbars would predictably secure the busbars in the desired positions while providing electrical insulation and reducing separate assembly steps.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman.
Regarding claim 3, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann further teaches each busbar includes a support section supported by the corresponding frame member, the support section being encased in the mold body ([0005]). Specifically, Goesmann teaches connectors integrated into the carrier, Sohag teaches molding insulating material around portions of the busbars, and Newmann supplies the structural-foam material, as stated above.
Goesmann, Newman, and Sohag are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Goesmann’s carrier to incorporate Sohag’s overmolding technique and Newman’s structural-foam material because doing so would be a simple substitution and combination of known manufacturing techniques and materials. Overmolding the busbars would predictably secure and electrically insulate the busbars within the carrier, while structural foam would provide the known lightweight structural support. The resulting busbar support section encased by the material would therefore be a predictable result of the known overmolding process.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman, and in further view of Sohag, and in further view of McClellan et al. (US 5665785), hereinafter McClellan, and in further view of King (US 6758627).
Regarding claim 4, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach the frame members have a honeycomb-like microporous interior core structure. McClellan teaches a structural foam having a substantially non-cellular integral skin surrounding a lower density core (Summary of the Invention). King teaches a structural foam that has variable densities (col. 9, ln.53-58).
Goesmann, Newman, Sohag, McClellan, and King are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to include McClellan/King’s lower-density microcellular core surrounded by an integral skin because this would be a use of a known structural-foam construction according to its intended purpose. Once structural foam was selected for the carrier, using a cellular or microcellular core with an integral skin would have been a predictable design choice to obtain the known combination of low weight and structural strength.
Regarding claim 5, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach each frame member includes a foam core and a solid skin surrounding the foam core. King teaches each frame member includes a foam core and a solid skin surrounding the foam core (col. 9, ln. 5-11).
Goesmann, Newman, Sohag, McClellan, and King are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to include a structural foam having a cellular core and integral solid skin because this would be a simple substitution of a known structural-foam configuration. The cellular core and solid skin perform their known functions of reducing weight while maintaining the strength and durability of the molded component. Thereby providing a predictable result when applied to the battery carrier.
Regarding claim 6, Goesmann, Newman, and King teach the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach the skin has a higher density than the foam core. King teaches the skin has a higher density than the foam core (col. 9, ln 53-63).
Goesmann, Newman, Sohag, McClellan, and King are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the structural foam of the Goesmann/Newman carrier such that the density is lower in the core and increases toward the outer skin because this would be a design choice based on the known density characteristics of structural foam. King teaches that structural-foam density can be lowest at the core and increase toward the exterior to provide a high-density skin and low-density core. Accordingly, selecting such a density distribution would have been a predictable use of the known structural-foam construction.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman.
Regarding claim 7, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach all of the frame members are an integral, unitary structure. Newman teaches the frame members are an integral, unitary structure ([0082]).
Goesmann and Newman are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the carrier of Goesmann to integrally form the frame members because this would be a design choice in the manufacture of a molded carrier that would reduce the number of separate components and simplify assembly. Integrally forming the frame members would also predictably increase structural continuity and rigidity. A person in the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the components as an integral molded structure is an ordinary alternative to separately forming and assembling the components.
Regarding claim 8, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach:
Each busbar includes ([0049]):
a main body ([0049]);
a first mating pad extending from the main body to the first mating end ([0049]);
a second mating pad extending from the main body to the second mating end ([0049]);
the frame members attached to the main bodies of the busbars ([0049]);
the first and second mating pads remote from the frame members and being freely movable relative to the frame members ([0134]).
Goesmann and Newman are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the carrier of Goesmann to allow the mating portions of the busbars to move relative to the carrier because doing so would be a design choice to accommodate manufacturing and positional tolerances between the battery cells and the carrier. Such relative movement would predictably facilitate alignment of the busbar mating portions with the cell terminals during assembly while allowing the main busbar body to remain supported by the carrier.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman, and in further view of Sohag, and in further view of McClellan et al. (US 5665785), hereinafter McClellan, and in further view of King (US 6758627).
Regarding claim 9, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach the frame members have a higher strength to weight ratio compared to comparable plastic injection molded parts. King teaches the frame members have a higher strength to weight ratio compared to comparable plastic injection molded parts (col. 9, ln. 5-11, 41-47).
Goesmann, Newman, and King are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to use the structural-foam construction of King because this would be a simple substitution of a known lightweight structural material to obtain its known strength-to-weight benefits. King provides an express teaching that the structural foam can provide increased rigidity while reducing material and weight. Thus, a POSITA would have been motivated to use the structural foam in the carrier to improve structural efficiency while reducing the carrier’s weight.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman, and in further view of Sohag, and in further view of McClellan, and in further view of King, and in further view of Morisato et al. WO 2018134982), hereinafter Morisato.
Regarding claim 10, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann teaches frame members as stated above. Goesmann fails to explicitly teach the frame members include outer frame members surrounding a perimeter of the busbar carrier and inner frame members spanning across an interior of the busbar carrier to interface with the busbars. Morisato teaches the frame members include outer frame members surrounding a perimeter of the busbar carrier and inner frame members spanning across an interior of the busbar carrier to interface with the busbars ([0044-00048]).
Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to incorporate Morisato’s frame-shaped busbar-holder arrangement because this would be a simple substitution of a known battery-specific support arrangement for the carrier structure. Morisato’s arrangement provides support and positioning for multiple busbars while maintaining open areas between the conductors. Applying this known arrangement to the Goesmann/Newman carrier would therefore provide the predictable benefit of mechanically locating and supporting the busbars within the battery module.
Regarding claim 11, Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato teach the limitations of claim 10, as stated above. Goesmann teaches frame members in a grid like pattern ([0024]). Goesmann fails to explicitly teach the inner frame members including longitudinal elements and lateral elements interconnecting the longitudinal elements. Morisato further teaches the inner frame members including longitudinal elements and lateral elements interconnecting the longitudinal elements ([0044-00048]).
Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the carrier of the Goesmann/Newman/Morisato combination to arrange the carrier members in longitudinal and lateral directions because this would be a predictable design choice for forming a rigid support grid. Morisato teaches interconnected support columns and horizontal wall members, including members that may be integrally molded. Arranging such members in intersecting directions would predictably maintain the spacing and positioning of the busbars while increasing the rigidity of the carrier.
Regarding claim 12, Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato teach the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach:
The rows of busbars and the columns of busbars are separated by gaps ([0044-0052], [0068]):
the lateral elements supporting each of the busbars in the corresponding column ([0044-0052], [0068]);
the longitudinal elements located in the gaps between the rows of the busbars ([0044-0052], [0068]).
Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the carrier of the Goesmann/Newman combination according to Morisato’s arrangement of busbars in rows or a matric with support members extending between adjacent busbars because this would be a predictable geometric design choice for supporting a plurality of busbars. Morisato expressly teaches rows and matrix arrangements of busbars with structural members positioned between adjacent busbars. Accordingly, positioning corresponding carrier members between rows and transversely across the busbars would have been an obvious arrangement to maintain busbar spacing and provide structural support.
Regarding claim 13, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Goesmann further teaches a sensing harness having sensing points coupled to the busbars, the busbar carrier supporting the sensing harness ([0005], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to modify the carrier of Goesmann to incorporate the cable harness and harness support because this would be a simple integration of a known electrical connection component into the existing carrier structure. The cable harness provides electrical access to the individual cell connectors, while mounting the harness to the carrier predictably maintaining the position of the harness and facilitates assembly.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman, and in further view of Morisato.
Regarding claim 14, Goesmann teaches:
A busbar interconnect for electrically connecting cell terminals of battery cells in a battery pack, the busbar interconnect comprising ([0005]):
a plurality of busbars arranged in a matrix having multiple rows and multiple columns of the bus bars, each bus bar including a first mating end for mating with the corresponding cell terminal of the corresponding battery cell and a second mating end for mating with the adjacent cell terminal of the adjacent corresponding battery cell, the busbars electrically connecting the battery cells in the battery pack ([0005]);
a busbar carrier holding each of the busbars in the matrix, the busbar carrier includes a molded body formed around each of the busbars holding relative positions of the busbars, the molded body including frame members holding corresponding busbars ([0007]).
Goesmann fails to teach the frame members are structural foam elements.
Newmann teaches the frame members are structural foam elements ([0034-0037]).
Goesmann further teaches battery-cell connectors integrated into an injection-molded carrier ([0005], [0007]). Morisato teaches a frame-shaped busbar holder having busbars arranged in row/matrix and interconnected supporting members, including a wall between adjacent busbars ([0044-00048], [0068]). Newman teaches structural foam in a battery carrier/support environment, and movable/flexible busbar connection portions ([0034-0037], [0134]).
Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the carrier of Goesmann according to Morisato’s frame-shaped busbar-holder arrangement and Newman’s structural-foam construction because this would a combination of known features according to their established functions. Morisato’s support members provide a known arrangement for positioning and supporting multiple busbars, while Newman teaches structural foam for providing lightweight structural support in a battery-module environment. Further, allowing the mating portions of the busbars to remain movable would be a design choice to accommodate manufacturing tolerances and facilitate alignment with the cell terminals. The combination would therefore provide the predictable result of a lightweight carrier that mechanically supports and positions the busbars while permitting alignment during assembly.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman, and in further view of Morisato, and in further view of Sohag.
Regarding claim 15, Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato teach the limitation of claim 14, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach the molded body is overmolded in situ over portions of the busbars to encase the portions of the busbars in the corresponding frame members.
Sohag teaches the molded body is overmolded in situ over portions of the busbars to encase the portions of the busbars in the corresponding frame members ([0034]).
Goesmann, Newman, and Sohag are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to incorporate Sohag’s dielectric overmolding because this would be a simple substitution of a known busbar-retention and insulation technique for separately positioning the busbars within the carrier. Overmolding the dielectric material onto portions of the busbars would predictably secure the busbars in the desired positions while providing electrical insulation and reducing separate assembly steps.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman, and in further view of Morisato, and in further view of Sohag, and in further view of King.
Regarding claim 16, Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato teach the limitation of claim 14, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach the frame members have a honeycomb-like microporous interior core structure. McClellan teaches a structural foam having a substantially non-cellular integral skin surrounding a lower density core (Summary of the Invention). King teaches a structural foam that has variable densities (col. 9, ln.53-58).
Goesmann, Newman, Sohag, McClellan, and King are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to include McClellan/King’s lower-density microcellular core surrounded by an integral skin because this would be a use of a known structural-foam construction according to its intended purpose. Once structural foam was selected for the carrier, using a cellular or microcellular core with an integral skin would have been a predictable design choice to obtain the known combination of low weight and structural strength.
Regarding claim 17, Goesmann, Newman, and Morisato teach the limitation of claim 14, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach each frame member includes a foam core and a solid skin surrounding the foam core. Goesmann further fails to teach the skin has a higher density than the foam core.
King teaches each frame member includes a foam core and a solid skin surrounding the foam core (col. 9, ln. 5-11). King further teaches the skin has a higher density than the foam core (col. 9, ln 53-63).
Goesmann, Newman, Sohag, and King are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to include a structural foam having a cellular core and integral solid skin because this would be a simple substitution of a known structural-foam configuration. The cellular core and solid skin perform their known functions of reducing weight while maintaining the strength and durability of the molded component. Thereby providing a predictable result when applied to the battery carrier.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the structural foam of the Goesmann/Newman carrier such that the density is lower in the core and increases toward the outer skin because this would be a design choice based on the known density characteristics of structural foam. King teaches that structural-foam density can be lowest at the core and increase toward the exterior to provide a high-density skin and low-density core. Accordingly, selecting such a density distribution would have been a predictable use of the known structural-foam construction.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goesmann, in view of Newman, and in further view of Sohag.
Regarding claim 18, Goesmann teaches an energy-storage module having a plurality of electrochemical storage cells, cell terminals, a carrier plate, and connectors integrated into the carrier that connect terminals of different cells in series or parallel ([0005], [0007]). Newman teaches structural foam used with interconnected battery carrier portions to produce a lightweight structure battery module ([0034-0037], [0134]).
Goesmann and Newman are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the carrier of Goesmann to utilize Newman’s structural-foam construction because this would be a simple substitution of a known lightweight structural material for the conventional molded carrier material. The substitution would provide the predictable benefit of reducing the weight of the carrier while maintaining the structural support needed for the battery module.
Regarding claim 19, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 18, as stated above. Goesmann further teaches a sensing harness having sensing points coupled to the busbars, the busbar carrier supporting the sensing harness ([0005], [0007], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to modify the carrier of Goesmann to incorporate the cable harness and harness support because this would be a simple integration of a known electrical connection component into the existing carrier structure. The cable harness provides electrical access to the individual cell connectors, while mounting the harness to the carrier predictably maintaining the position of the harness and facilitates assembly.
Regarding claim 20, Goesmann and Newman teach the limitations of claim 18, as stated above. Goesmann fails to teach the molded body is overmolded in situ over portions of the busbars to encase the portions of the busbars in the corresponding frame members.
Sohag teaches the molded body is overmolded in situ over portions of the busbars to encase the portions of the busbars in the corresponding frame members ([0034]).
Goesmann, Newman, and Sohag are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the Goesmann/Newman carrier to incorporate Sohag’s dielectric overmolding because this would be a simple substitution of a known busbar-retention and insulation technique for separately positioning the busbars within the carrier. Overmolding the dielectric material onto portions of the busbars would predictably secure the busbars in the desired positions while providing electrical insulation and reducing separate assembly steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights