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 received 02/02/2025 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2018/066797 wherein US 2019/0001838 as submitted by the Applicant in the IDS forms is the English Publication of the WO document, hereinafter Choi) further in view of English translation of KR20170081901A (Song).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a battery module (Abstract, Fig. 2, 3) comprising: a battery cell stack in which a plurality of battery cells is stacked (Fig 2, para. 41, 42 wherein the plurality of battery cells is stacked “100”); first and second busbar frames formed respectively on front and rear surfaces of the battery cell stack (Fig. 2, 3, and para. 44-47, 54, wherein a first busbar frame 210 is formed on the front surface of the battery cell stack and the second busbar frame 230 is formed on the rear surface of the battery cell stack); and a flexible printed circuit board connecting the first and second busbar frames (Fig. 2, 3, para. 56-59 where the “sensing bus bar” 250 is a flexible printed circuit board that connects the front and rear frames 210 and 230 via their respective busbars 220 and 240 respectively). Choi is silent with respect to wherein the flexible printed circuit board includes a first flexible printed circuit board part and a second flexible printed circuit board part which is separate from the first flexible printed circuit board part, and the first flexible printed circuit board part and the second flexible printed circuit board part are connected to each other via a connector. Song teaches a battery pack having an improved structure so that a connection state of a communication wire connected to a BMS is stably maintained, while the communication wire is safely protected from external physical and chemical factors [abs]. Song teaches various configurations of the claim flexible circuit board, i.e. BMS (Figs. 1-9). Song teaches wherein the flexible printed circuit board includes a first flexible printed circuit board part [#200 i.e slave BMS is considered to be the flexible circuit board; 0044; ] and a second flexible printed circuit board part [#200; 0044-0047; The slave communication wire 300 may be included in a plurality of battery packs. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, two slave BMSs 200 may be interconnected via two or more slave communication wires 300. One slave BMS 200 is connected to a slave communication wire 300 to be connected to any one slave BMS 200 and a slave communication wire 300 to be connected to another slave BMS 200 separately] which is separate from the first flexible printed circuit board part, and the first flexible printed circuit board part and the second flexible printed circuit board part are connected to each other via a connector [#300, i.e. communication wire; 0046]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi in view of Song as both teach a battery pack configured to connected to one another and Song further teaches a multi-slave structure is widely used in order to improve the efficiency of monitoring and control. The multi-slave structure is configured such that a plurality of slave BMSs respectively take charge of a plurality of battery modules constituting the battery pack [0006].
Regarding claim 2, modified Choi discloses the battery module of claim 1, as shown above, and Song further discloses wherein the connector is formed at a center of the flexible printed circuit board to connect the first flexible printed circuit board part and the second flexible printed circuit board part (fig. 7, #200 (BMSs); 0046-0047) are connected via the connector #300, i.e. communication wire and is connected to center portions of both first and second flexible printed circuit board parts to connect them together, see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi discloses the battery module of claim 1, as shown above, and Song further discloses wherein the connector is formed at one end of both the first flexible printed circuit board part and the second flexible printed circuit board part. (Fig. 2 and para. 0046-0047 where the connector 300 is connected end points of both first and second flexible printed circuit board parts to connect them together, see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 4, Choi discloses the battery module of claim 1, as shown above, and Choi further discloses wherein the battery cell stack includes a battery cell fixing part for fixing the plurality of battery cells in a vertical direction at a center and both ends of the battery cell stack. (Fig. 2-4 and para. 64-66 wherein the reinforcing plate 300 is considered to be a “battery cell fixing part” since it connects the front and rear busbar frames 210 and 230 respectively and by connecting the two parts together provides a buffer/support for fixing the battery cells in the vertical direction at a center (the directional plane with both of the front and rear frames) which is perpendicular to the battery cell stacking direction).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the battery module of claim 4, as shown above, and Song further discloses wherein the connector (as described in claim 1 and 2), Choi teaches the battery cell fixing part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi in view of Song and place the connector on the battery cell fixing part as this is a known configuration in this field of endeavor, as noted, Choi teaches the “fixing part” as it connects the front and rear busbar frames 210 and 230 respectively and by connecting the two parts together provides a buffer/support for fixing the battery cells in the vertical direction at a center. Choi further teaches that there is a connector (i.e. in Choi the #255], however as noted in claim 1, Choi doesn’t teach the connector is connected to the first/second flexible circuit board as required by claim 1. Song teaches the first and second flexible printed circuit and the connector as required by claim 1. Therefore, Choi in view Song teach the connector is located on the battery cell fixing part (Fig. 2 para. 0046 where the connector 300 (Song) is located on a section of the reinforcing plate 300 (Choi), as this is just considered to be modifying Choi’s flexible circuit board and connector with Song’s flexible circuit board and connector with no change in how the battery module will function and one would have a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding claim 6, modified Choi discloses the battery module of claim 1, as shown above, and Song further discloses wherein the connector is formed on opposite ends of each of the first and second flexible printed circuit board parts to connect the first and second flexible printed circuit board parts. (Fig. 2 and para. 0046-0047 where the connector 300 is connected end points of both first and second flexible printed circuit board parts (the rear most portion of the first printed circuit board part and the front most portion of the second flexible printed circuit board part) to connect them together, see claim 1 rejection above)
Regarding claim 10, modified Choi discloses the battery module of claim 1, as shown above, and Choi further discloses a battery pack comprising the battery module according to claim 1 (Abstract, para. 12 where the battery module of Choi is included in a battery pack).
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 SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729