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 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, after “lead” and before “an”, it is suggested to insert –of--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 refers to a first battery cell stack and a second battery cell stack. The claim later refers to “wherein the battery cell stack includes at least one double cell structure”, however it is not clear if this is in reference to the first or second stack. It seems that reference to –the battery cell assembly—may be clearer than “wherein the battery cell stack”.
Claim 2, last line refers to “the center busbar”. It is not clear if this is in reference to the “one center busbar” or “the center busbar assembly”. The same recitation is present in the last line of claim 3.
Claim 5 refers to “a protrusion” in line 2 and refers to “a protrusion” again in line 4. These citations appear to reference the same protrusion, but the repeated use of “a” renders this unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the electrode lead" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrode lead of the battery cell disposed on a first outermost side of the first battery cell stack" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, last line refers to “another one of the terminal busbars”. Since there are a pair of terminal busbar assemblies, each of which includes a terminal busbar, should claim 8 refer to “the other one of the terminal busbars”.
Claim 10, lines 4 and 7 each recite the limitation "the electrode lead". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 refers to “each center busbar”. However, there is no antecedent basis for more than one center busbar, thus the recitation of “each” is unclear.
All dependent claims are included due to the rejection of claim 1.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, and 19 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 US 2020/0365844 (Jeon).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Jeon discloses a battery module, considered a pack, comprising a first battery cell stack and second battery cell stack as shown in Figure 2. The cells are stacked vertically. The first battery cell stack and second battery cell stack are arranged perpendicularly to the direction of stacking as shown in Figure 2. Cells of adjacent stacks are formed by electrically connecting the cells of the first stack to cells of the second stack via connection members 26 which comprise busbars 26a as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Thus, Jeon discloses multiple double cell structures that include a cell from the first stack and a cell from the second stack electrically connected via a busbar. Here, the claim requires a double cell structure including one battery cell of the first stack be electrically connected to one battery cell of the second stack. Jeon discloses connection of two cells of one stack and two cells of the adjacent stack to the bus bar as shown in Figure 5. This is seen to meet the requirement of one battery cell of the first stack being electrically connected to one battery cell of the second stack as the connection of two cells from each stack is inclusive of one cell from each stack. Stated another way, the claim is not limited to a only a single cell from the first stack electrically connected to only a single cell from the second stack. Alternatively, if the claims were so interpreted, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide a single bus bar for each connection as a duplication of parts. Jeon discloses a single embodiment of connecting adjacent cells and using bus bars to join two adjacent cells rather than four is seen to be a design choice and duplication of busbars to join individual cells to one another rather than multiple cells.
Regarding claim 2, Jeon discloses the battery cells 10 are pouch cells [0045] and leads 15 are present on both sides of the cells and the leads of adjacent cells are joined via the center busbar.
Regarding claim 3, Jeon discloses welding the leads to the center busbar [0071].
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0365844 (Jeon) in view of CN 107534105 (Tyler).
Jeon discloses the configuration discussed above and included multiple busbars and further discloses stacking such that relatively large surfaces oppose each other (the stacks) and have a separator interposed between the electrodes. The separators are considered spacers. However, Jeon does not disclose spacers located between adjacent center busbars. Tyler discloses spacers formed between adjacent pouch cells as shown in Figures 5 and 6. The spacers (52) have projections 66, 70 which can be electrically coupled to the busbar to provide electrical isolation between busbars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide spacers between the pouch cells of Jeon to provide electrical isolation between the cells and to further extend the spacer to provide isolation between the busbars as disclosed by Tyler and avoid short circuiting.
Regarding claim 6, the claim requires the spacers are assembled with the center busbars by engaging with hooks. This limitation does not specify the manner of engagement only that the spacers are assembled and hooks are present. The spacers of Tyler have a hook shape where the spacer extends to engage the busbars as seen in Figures 4 and 5, thus the hook engagement is considered met.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0365844 (Jeon) in view of US 2016/0028056 (Lee ‘056).
Jeon does not disclose terminal busbar assemblies on opposite ends of the center busbar assembly. Lee ‘056 discloses a busbar assembly 350 for a stack of pouch batteries and including bus bars 351 where one of the bus bars 351 constitutes external input and output terminals including external input and output terminal parts 353m each has one end mounted at an assembly body of the bus bar assembly [0062]. It would have been obvious to provide terminal busbars such as those of Lee ‘056 to the busbar assembly of Jeon to provide a known means for external input and output with a reasonable expectation of providing successful external connectivity.
Regarding claim 8, providing terminal busbars to either end of the assembly would engage the outermost battery in the stacks.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0365844 (Jeon) in view of US 2016/0028056 (Lee ‘056) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of WO 2022/035123 (Ju).
Jeon and Lee ‘056 do not disclose terminal spacer and terminal insulation plate arranged as claimed. Ju discloses a battery module having a cooling structure including a busbar assembly as shown in Figure 8 having a bus bar frame assembly where the structure surrounds busbars including end (terminal) busbars including a front sealing plate 300 that is made of an insulating resin (considered a cover) and structure formed between each bus bar such that the bus bars (122) are fixed onto the frame and faces a first surface of the busbars. A coolant is also provided which is considered to add more insulation to the bus bars. It would have been obvious to provide insulating structures such as spacers and a frame to support and insulate the busbars of Jeon in a manner similar to that of Ju.
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0365844 (Jeon) in view of US 20110559342 (Lee ‘342).
Jeon discloses an external connection member 27 and coupling terminal 271 and busbar 27a at both ends of the plate portion between cells 10 in the stacked position (Figure 3). Jeon does not disclose first and second external busbar frames and wherein electrode leads from each battery cell are connected to each busbar. Lee ‘342 discloses a stack of batteries where the outside leads (terminals) of the batteries are electrically connected via busbars to external input and output terminals (Figure 2, [0039]). As seen in Figure 2, the busbars 320 are provided in front part 310 of lower case 300, which is considered a frame. It would have been obvious to provide first and second external busbar frames to either end of the stack assembly of Jeon to provide a known means for coupling the outside leads of each battery to external input and output terminals as demonstrated by Lee ‘342 to successfully provide external connectivity of the battery stacks.
Regarding claim 11, by providing either end of the structure of Jeon with external busbar frames to provide connection to input and output terminals, these frames would be located on an opposite side of the first and second battery stacks from the center busbar assembly, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Jeon discloses circuit board 28 is connected to busbar 26a of each of the connection members 26 to measure a voltage of the battery cells 10 [0084]. The circuit board may also have a temperature sensor to measure temperature of the battery. The circuit board connects with coupling terminals 271 at each end of the stack assemblies. Jeon does not disclose the sensors mounted on the each frame however, Lee ‘342 discloses that voltage sensing members may be mounted to a bottom of the battery module at regions (a front part and a rear part of the battery module) corresponding to electrode terminal connections of the battery cells, (b) a connection part for electrically interconnecting the front supporting part and the rear supporting part, (c) conductive sensing parts having one-side ends coupled to the corresponding supporting parts via wires, each of the conductive sensing parts having a larger contact surface than each of the wires [0016]. It would have been obvious to mount the sensors in a location different from that of Jeon with provided wiring connection as disclosed by Lee ‘342 as an alternative design for the location of sensors and wiring.
Regarding claim 13, as shown by Jeon, each busbar is connected to an electrode lead and circuit 28 (Figure 6) and is connected to an end of the center busbar. The phrase “lower” end is relative there being no upper end.
Claim(s) 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0365844 (Jeon).
Jeon discloses insulating material is provided on all sides by way of insulating pad (18) which is provided between plate 40a and the cell assembly 60 and between plate 40b and cell assembly 60. The insulation between 40b and 60 may be considered an upper insulating member and is adjacent the assembly of busbars which are central and is adjacent to an outer busbar of the assembly. Cover plate 70 at the end is considered connected to the upper insulating member and corresponding lower insulating pad 18 between 40a and assembly 60 and is also be formed of an insulating material [0141] and it would have been obvious to provide a cover plate on either side of the assembly to better insulate the stacks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the limitations of claims 5, specifically the structure claimed regarding each spacer and each center busbar as it is recited; the limitations of claims 16 and 18, specifically the structure claimed regarding the plurality of center busbars, plurality of spacers and engagement with hooks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
