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 § 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the holder" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “a holder”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, in line 1, recites the limitation “battery pack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “a battery pack”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8, in line 1, recite the limitation “battery pack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “the battery pack”. Appropriate correction is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation wherein the second end is inclined to the contact plane by an angle between 3° and 7, and the claim also recites preferably an angle of 5° which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "electrically propelled road vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “the road vehicle with electric propulsion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “the road vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poggio (US 2022/0367925 A1) in view of Dulle et al. (US 2015/0069829 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Poggio discloses the battery pack for a road vehicle (road vehicle 1) with electric propulsion (Para. 0031), wherein the battery pack (battery pack 3) comprises: a plurality of planar electrochemical cells (C, C & C”) arranged in a pack side by side (Para. 0079); in which each cell comprises terminal poles (TT’ & TT”) connected to each other by contacting planes at a first edge of the cells; a support facing the terminal poles of the cells (planar support substrate 37 is positioned above the poles); a plurality of elastically deformable spring-conducting elements (elastically deformable contact elements 39); each spring-conducting element comprising a first end (end of element 39 fixed to substrate 37) coupled to the holder (planar support substrate 37) and a second opposite free end (end of element 39 diverging from substrate 37 toward the terminal pole), in which the spring-conducting elements are arranged in rows so that when the battery pack is in use each row of the spring-conducting elements is pressed against the terminal poles and the second ends make contact with the corresponding contacting plane to make a conductive bridge between the cells and the holder (Fig. 11).
Poggio differs from the invention as claimed because Poggio does not disclose wherein at least one of the second ends of the springs is in the form of a contact plane substantially parallel to the contact plane; at least one split or opening or gap is made so as to divide the contact plane into at least two zones at least partially separated from each other.
Dulle et al., however, teaches a vehicle having conductive voltage sense correction members for providing an electrical connection between battery-cell interconnects and voltage sensing circuity on a PCB. Dulle, further discloses a split (slit 227 splits the conductive tabs 226 into two portions) made so as to divide the contact plane into at least two zones at least partially separate from each other (Para. 0170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included at least one of the second ends of the springs is in the form of a contact plane substantially parallel to the contact plane; at least one split or opening or gap is made so as to divide the contact plane into at least two zones at least partially separated from each other as taught by Dulle on the invention of Poggio for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of the conductive contact member and thereby permit the member to better accommodate relative movement, dimensional variation and surface irregularities while maintaining electrical contact. Such a modification would predictably divide the contacting portion on opposite sides of the slit into at least two partially separated contacting zones.
Regarding claim 2, Poggio as modified by Dulle et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1. Poggio further discloses wherein the second end is U-shaped and comprises at least two separate arms substantially parallel to the contact plane (Fig. 13 shows U-shaped ends).
Regarding claim 3, Poggio as modified by Dulle et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 2. Poggio further discloses wherein the arms are substantially parallel to the direction of the spring row (Para. 0091; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 5, Poggio as modified by Dulle et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1. Poggio further discloses wherein the second end lies, prior to contact with the bargaining plane in an inclined plane relative to the contact plane (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, Poggio as modified by Dulle et al. discloses the Battery pack as claimed in claim 5. Poggio differs from the invention as claimed because Poggio does not disclose wherein the second end is inclined to the contact plane by an angle between 3° and 7°, preferably an angle of 5°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to wherein the second end is inclined to the contact plane by an angle between 3° and 7°, preferably an angle of 5°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The purpose for making the modification would be because during the compression steps of the spring against the contacting plane of the poles a relative sliding is generated capable of removing any dirt deposited in the contact zone.
Regarding claim 8, Poggio as modified by Dulle et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1. Poggio further discloses wherein the battery pack (battery pack 3) also comprises: a box-shaped support structure with a back wall and two side walls and an opening opposite the back wall from which the contact planes of the terminal poles of the cells are accessible (Figs. 2-4); a cover (closing element 9) coupled to the support structure (planar support substrate 37) at the opening; the support supporting the spring elements (elastically deformable contact elements 39) being in the form of a substrate coupled to the cover and facing the cells; at least one voltage sensing device (sensor 14) of the cells supported by the holder and connected to the spring elements to monitor the voltage of each cell (Claim 5; Para. 0081).
Regarding claim 9, Poggio as modified by Dulle et al. discloses an electrically propelled road vehicle (Paras. 0018 & 0031); wherein the vehicle comprises a battery pack according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Poggio as modified by Dulle et al. discloses the vehicle as claimed in claim 9. Poggio further discloses wherein the battery pack (battery pack 3) is arranged transversely to a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (vehicle 1) and is mounted on a frame (frame 2) posterior to a passenger compartment (Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poggio in view of Dulle et al. and in further view of Kim et. al (US 2009 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Poggio as modified by Dulle et al. discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1. Poggio differs from the invention as claimed because Poggio does not disclose wherein the second end comprises at least one embossing point to the contact plane.
Kim et al., however, teaches at least one embossing point at the contact plane (Paras. 0084-0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included at least one embossing point at the contact plane as taught by Kim et al. on the invention of Poggio for the purpose of providing a localized projecting electrical contact surface thereby improving reliable electrical engagement between the resilient conductive spring member and the opposing terminal surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not fairly teach or disclose
wherein the terminal poles of each cell are connected to each other by a longitudinal weld line along the contact plane parallel to the arms; the distance between the arms being equal to or greater than the cross-sectional width of the longitudinal weld. The closest prior art of record (Poggio) explicitly states that there are no welds (Para. 0082).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY LYNN JOHNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4852. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30.
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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at 3032974337 or 5712726698. 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.
/HILARY L JOHNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights