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 objected to because of the following informality:
In claim10, line 2, “are formed as formed from” should be written as “are formed as
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“Raised insulating features,” which has been interpreted as raised insulators, and equivalents thereof (Applicant’s published application, paragraph 43).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, 14-15,17, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2015/0171405 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches a terminal plate comprising: a baseplate; a positive terminal opening in the baseplate providing access to a positive terminal of a battery; a negative terminal opening in the baseplate providing access to a negative terminal of the battery [Paragraph 0043, lines 7-10; Fig 4]. Lee also teaches one or more raised insulating features between the positive terminal opening and the negative terminal opening [Paragraph 0051, line 1; Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Lee teaches the terminal plate in claim 11 and at least one of a width or a composition of the one or more raised insulating features is selected to prevent an electrical short between conductors on opposing sides of the one or more raised insulating features for a selected voltage range [Paragraph 0051, lines 1-2; Fig 4]. It is noted that “selected voltage range” is not quantified and thus is not distinguishing, since the insulator must be effective for a particular voltage range. The selected voltage range must be higher than a combined voltage of a number of batteries in order for the prevention of the electrical short.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the terminal plate in claim 11 and at least one of a position, design, or orientation of at least one of the one or more raised insulating features on the terminal plate is selected to prevent contact of a busbar connected to one of the positive or negative terminals of the battery with a busbar connected to another of the positive or negative terminals of the battery. [Paragraph 0050, lines 1-7 & Fig 3 & 4].
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the terminal plate in claim 11 and the terminal plate as a first terminal plate, wherein the one or more raised insulating features of the first terminal plate forms a gap when combined with one or more raised insulating features of a second terminal plate, wherein the gap provides a space for placement of a busbar between the first terminal plate and the second terminal plate [Paragraph 0050, lines 1-7 & Fig 3 & 4].
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches the terminal plate in claim 11 and the one or more raised insulating features oriented orthogonal to a line connecting the positive terminal opening and the negative terminal opening [Paragraph 0054, lines 2-5; Fig 5].
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches the terminal plate in claim 11 and the one or more raised insulating features formed as a single monolithic component [Paragraph 0054, lines 2-5; Fig 5].
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the terminal plate in claim 11 and the one or more raised insulating features are formed as two or more joined components [Paragraph 055, lines 4-6; Fig 5].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5,7, 9-10, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20150171405 A1) in view of Kwon (US 20190334141 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a plurality of terminal plates comprising: a baseplate; a positive terminal opening in the baseplate providing access to a positive terminal of a corresponding one of the plurality of batteries; a negative terminal opening in the baseplate providing access to a negative terminal of a corresponding battery of the plurality of batteries [Paragraph 0043, lines 7-10; Fig 4]. Lee also teaches one or more raised insulating features between the positive terminal opening and the negative terminal opening [Paragraph 0051, line 1; Fig 4]. Lee does not teach a battery cabinet comprising: an enclosure and a plurality of racks for securing a plurality of batteries within the enclosure; and a plurality of terminal plates for at least some of the plurality of batteries. Kwon teaches a battery cabinet comprising: an enclosure and a plurality of racks for securing a plurality of batteries within the enclosure; and a plurality of terminal plates for at least some of the plurality of batteries [Paragraph 0065 & 0077; Fig 1 & Fig 2]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of racks to securely house a plurality of battery modules and to increase cooling efficiency as taught by Kwon [Paragraph 0007, lines 1-2].
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Lee teaches at least one of a width or a composition of at least one of the one or more raised insulating features being selected to prevent an electrical short between conductors on opposing sides of the at least one of the one or more raised insulating features for a selected voltage range [Paragraph 0049, lines 8-10; Figs 3 & 4]. It is noted that “selected voltage range” is not quantified and thus is not distinguishing, since the insulator must be effective for a particular voltage range. The selected voltage range must be higher than a combined voltage of a number of batteries in order for the prevention of the electrical short.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches at least one of a position, design, or orientation of the one or more raised insulating features on a corresponding one of the plurality of terminal plates being selected to prevent contact of a busbar connected to one of the positive or negative terminals of any of the plurality of batteries with a busbar connected to another of the positive or negative terminals of another of the plurality of batteries [Paragraph 0050, lines 1-7 & Fig 3 & 4].
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches at least one of the one or more raised insulating features of a first terminal plate of the plurality of terminal plates forming a gap when combined with another one of the one or more raised insulating features of a second terminal plate of the plurality of terminal plates, wherein the gap provides a space for placement of a busbar between the first terminal plate and the second terminal plate [Paragraph 0050, lines 1-7 & Fig 3 & 4].
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches at least one of the one or more raised insulating features of at least one of the plurality of terminal plates being oriented orthogonal to a line connecting the positive terminal opening and the negative terminal opening [Paragraph 0054, lines 1-5; Fig 5].
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches at least one of the plurality of terminal plates and the corresponding one or more raised insulating features formed as a single monolithic component [Paragraph 0051, lines 1-2; Fig 4].
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches at least one of the plurality of terminal plates and the corresponding one or more raised insulating features formed from two or more joined components [Paragraph 0055, lines 1-2; Fig 5].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20150171405 A1) in view of Kwon (US 20190334141 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, While Lee does teach the raised insulating features, it fails to teach the diagonal orientation. However, it has been held that a change in shape or rearrangement of parts is generally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IVB and VIC). Applicant’s specification does not disclose any superior benefit of orienting in a diagonal manner. It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the insulating feature in different ways, including diagonally, to accommodate the various parts of the terminal plate.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20150171405 A1), as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the terminal plate of claim 11 [Paragraph 0043, lines 7-10; Fig 4 & Paragraph 0051, line 1; Fig. 4]. Lee also teaches the raised insulating features [Paragraph 0051, line 1; Fig 4]. Lee does not teach the diagonal orientation. However, it has been held that a change in shape or rearrangement of parts is generally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IVB and VIC). Applicant’s specification does not disclose any superior benefit of orienting in a diagonal manner. It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to orient the insulating feature in different ways, including diagonally, to accommodate the various parts of the terminal plate.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20150171405 A1) in view of Kwon (US 20190334141 A1) in further in view of Lee (US 20250087846 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee ‘405 in view of Kwon teaches the battery cabinet of claim 1 [Paragraph 0065 & 0077; Fig 1 & Fig 2]. Lee ‘405 does not teach the one or more raised insulating features formed from at least one of plastic, glass, or ceramic. Lee ‘846 teaches the one or more raised insulating features formed from at least one of plastic, glass, or ceramic [Paragraph 0051, lines 1-4]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the raised insulating features of Lee ‘405 out of at least plastic, a known material for forming battery insulators, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20150171405 A1) in view of Lee (US 20250087846 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Lee’405 teaches the terminal plate of claim 11[Paragraph 0043, lines 7-10; Fig 4 & Paragraph 0051, line 1; Fig. 4]. Lee’405 does not teach the one or more raised insulating features formed from at least one of plastic, glass, or ceramic. Lee’846 teaches the one or more raised insulating features formed from at least one of plastic, glass, or ceramic [Paragraph 0051, lines 1-4]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the raised insulating features out of at least plastic, a known material for forming battery insulators, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNE S. NUNEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/BRIANNE NUNEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights