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 .
Claims Status
Claims 9-14 and 16-21 are currently pending, claim 10 is currently amended and claim 21 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “neither Pedtke, Sakuri, nor Onose disclose a printed circuit board having at least one through hole thermally separating the fuse device and the monitoring device as claimed... anyone of skill in the art would realize that the monitoring device in Onose similar to any possible asserted voltage comparator in the Pedtke/Sakuri combination is current calculation unit 50 and monitoring IC 60 which are not thermally isolated from the asserted fuses.”. Applicant further argues that ONOSE “teaches a completely different feature not shown in any prior art, namely: a through hole separating a fuse and a monitoring device with a voltage comparator…Nor is any reason given for providing a temperature sensor for ONOSE to the PEDTKE/SAKURI combination”
The examiner respectfully disagrees and explains that PEDTKE as modified by SAKURI is relied upon to disclose the structure of the protective Apparatus comprising a fuse and a monitoring device comprising a voltage comparator. PEDKE and SAKURI lack the limitation of a through hole separating the fuse and the monitoring device.
ONOSE teaches using a through hole as a way to thermally isolate components on a circuit board, ONOSE discloses a plurality of through holes (Fig.5, Items: Skits 23) separating a temperature sensor (interpreted as the monitoring device) and pattern element 10 (Par.23 discloses the pattern element comprising a fuse). ONOSE further discloses that the fuse is surrounded by two slits 20 (Fig.1) to avoid thermal diffusion (Par.24). ONOSE therefore clearly teaches using through holes to separate temperature sensitive elements on a circuit board from elements that may have high thermal generation. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that the temperature sensor 80 is not the monitoring circuit and that the current calculation unit is the monitoring circuit and that it is not isolated from the fuse. However, arguendo, the current calculation circuit is the monitoring device, ONOSE discloses the pattern element is surrounded by slits 20 to prevent thermal diffusion and also it teaches the principle of using the through hole to separate thermally sensitive elements on a circuit board from heat generating elements.
The examiner explains that voltage comparators are inherently thermally sensitive and since it is placed on a circuit board with a heat generating element such as a fuse, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by PEDTKE and SAKURI with the teachings of ONOSE by adding at least one through hole on the printed circuit board for thermally separating the fuse device and the monitoring device for the benefit of improving the voltage measurement by suppressing the influence of temperature change of external components on the voltage measuring apparatus and providing protection against damage caused by the increased temperature of the fuse element (See ONOSE, Par.33).
Applicant’s amendment of independent claim 10 overcomes the previous objection. The previous objection the claim is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the fuse device being closer to the first elongated side than the second elongated side, and the voltage comparator and the switch being closer to the second elongated side than the first elongated side” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Please see the rejection of claim 21 below showing that the limitation is not disclosed in the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The examiner explains that there is no support for the limitation “wherein the through hole has first and second elongated sides, the fuse device being closer to the first elongated side than the second elongated side, and the voltage comparator and the switch being closer to the second elongated side than the first elongated side.” The specification is silent regarding the distance between each component and the elongated walls. Figures 4 and 5 of the present application disclose a through hole “DB” , however the figures are not drawn to scale and the above limitations can not be ascertained from the drawings. In fact, it appears in the drawings that the distance between the monitoring device and both elongated walls is less than the distance between the fuse and the elongated wall (See annotated Figures 3 and 4 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
546
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
578
994
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 10-11, 13-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEDTKE et al. (US 2016/0233555 A1, hereinafter PEDTKE) in view of SAKURI (US 2002/0089308A1, hereinafter SAKURI) and in further view of ONOSE (US 2018/0164381 A1, hereinafter ONOSE).
PNG
media_image3.png
269
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, PEDTKE discloses a protective apparatus for protecting a rechargeable battery pack having at least one rechargeable battery cell against an overvoltage in at least one line of the rechargeable battery pack (See Fig.2, Item#10 and Par.19, disclose a battery protection circuit. Par.10, discloses the protection circuit is activated when any cell voltage exceeds a threshold voltage), the protective apparatus comprising:
a fuse device including at least one fuse (See Fig.2, Item#F1, discloses a fuse);
a short-circuiting line for optionally short-circuiting the at least one rechargeable battery cell by way of the at least one fuse (See Fig.2, Item#34, discloses a switch installed on a short-circuiting line between the terminals of the 30a and 30d of the battery pack comprising cells A, V and C);
a monitoring device including at least one voltage comparator for detecting an exceedance of a voltage threshold value by a voltage value detected by the monitoring device (See Fig.3, Item#50 and Par.24-25, disclose the microprocessor 50 of the control subsystem 40 is used to measure the voltage of each of the cells of the battery pack and compared to a threshold which may be set at an overcharge threshold 4.4), and at least one switch for optionally closing the short-circuiting line if the voltage value detected by the voltage comparator exceeds the voltage threshold value by a predetermined voltage value, such that a current flowing through the at least one fuse exceeds a short-circuit current value of the at least one fuse (Pars.25-26, disclose that when an overcharge condition is detected, microprocessor 50 activates switch 34 which closes the short circuiting path such that a large current enough to blow fuse F1 passes through the fuse) , the at least one fuse as a result interrupting the at least one line of the rechargeable battery pack (See Par.26, discloses the result of the switch being closed is a large current passing through the fuse F1 which will “quickly blow” interrupting the line 31a).
The fuse and monitoring devices are interpreted to be mounted on a printed circuit board as they inherently have to be placed on a surface and cannot be floating.
However, PEDTKE does not disclose the overvoltage protection circuit is activated when the battery voltage exceeds the voltage threshold value by a predetermined voltage value for a predetermined time duration; and a printed circuit board having at least one through hole for thermally separating the fuse device and the monitoring device, the fuse device and the monitoring device being on the printed circuit board.
SAKURI discloses a battery protection circuit comprising an overvoltage protection circuit which is activated when the battery voltage exceeds the voltage threshold value by a predetermined voltage value for a predetermined time duration (See Pars.5-6, disclose “when the over-charge detection signal continues for a given period of time or longer, the over-charge detection signal is outputted to the logic circuit 305 from the delay circuit 309”).
PEDTKE and SAKURI are analogous art since both deal with battery protection circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by PEDTKE with that of SAKURI by activating the over-voltage protection when the battery voltage exceeds the voltage threshold value by a predetermined voltage value for a predetermined time duration for the benefit of preventing the malfunction caused by a temporal noise or the like (See SAKURI, Par.6).
However, PEDTKE and SAKURI do not disclose a printed circuit board having at least one through hole for thermally separating the fuse device and the monitoring device.
PNG
media_image4.png
420
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
558
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
ONOSE discloses a battery protection and monitoring apparatus comprising a printed circuit board (See Fig.4, discloses : Printed circuit board) having at least one through hole for thermally separating a fuse device and a monitoring apparatus (See Figs.4 and 5 and Par.33, disclose a thermally isolated area 70 comprising a temperature sensor 80 [monitoring apparatus], the temperature sensor is surrounded by a plurality of Slits 23 [holes]. The slits 23 thermally isolate the temperature sensor 80 from the plurality of pattern element 10 [pattern elements 10 are identified as fuses in Par.23]).
PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE are analogous art since they all deal with battery protection circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by PEDTKE and SAKURI with the teachings of ONOSE by adding at least one through hole on the printed circuit board for thermally separating the fuse device and the monitoring device for the benefit of improving the voltage measurement by suppressing the influence of temperature change of external components on the voltage measuring apparatus and providing protection against damage caused by the increased temperature of the fuse element (See ONOSE, Par.33).
Regarding claim 11, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 10 as discussed above, wherein the at least one switch is configured as a transistor (See PEDTKE, Fig.2, Item#34).
Regarding claim 13, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 10 as discussed above, wherein the fuse device is positioned in the positive line of the rechargeable battery pack (See PEDTKE, Fig.2, Item#F1, discloses a fuse connected to the positive line of the battery, see positive terminal 16a. Fig.1, discloses terminal 30a is terminal connected to the positive terminal of the battery).
Regarding claim 14, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 10 as discussed above, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE further disclose wherein the fuse device is positioned in the positive line of the rechargeable battery pack (See PEDTKE, Fig.2, Item#F1, discloses a fuse connected to the positive line of the battery, see positive terminal 16a. Fig.1, discloses terminal 30a is connected to the positive terminal of the battery), but PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE do not disclose wherein the fuse device is positioned in the negative line of the rechargeable battery pack.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE by placing fuse on the negative line of the rechargeable battery pack as an obvious alternative from a finite set of solutions (connecting the fuse to the positive battery line or the negative battery line) without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 10 as discussed above, however PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE do not disclose wherein the printed circuit board has a length of 30mm and a height of 10mm, and the through hole has a width of 1mm and a length of 7 mm.
However, selecting the size of the PCB and the through hole are common design choices made by product designers and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try different size PCBs and through hole to arrive at PCB and through hole dimensions which satisfy the application while providing the desired thermal isolation between the components.
Regarding claim 17, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 10 as discussed above, wherein the at least one through hole includes two through holes (See ONOSE, Fig.5, discloses a plurality of slits 23 including 2 vertical slits).
Regarding claim 18, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 17 wherein the first and second through hole are cutouts in sides of the printed circuit board See ONOSE, Fig.5, discloses a plurality of slits 23 including 2 vertical slits on the side of the PCB [The 2 vertical slits 23 are interpreted to be located on the side of the printed board of Fig.4]).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEDTKE in view of SAKURI and ONOSE and in further view of PANNWITZ (US 2003/0025480 A1, hereinafter PANWITZ).
Regarding claim 9, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 10 as discussed above, however, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE do not disclose wherein the at least one fuse is configured as a fusible link.
PANNWITZ discloses a battery protection circuit comprising an over-voltage protection circuit which activates a fusible link when the battery voltage exceeds a threshold voltage (See Fig.1, Items 111 to 11n and Par.19, disclose a fusible link).
PEDTKE, SAKURI, ONOSE and PANNWITZ are analogous art since they all deal with battery protection circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE with that of PANNWITZ by using a fusible link for the benefit of reducing cost.
Regarding claim 12, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 10 as discussed above, however PEDTKE and SAKURI disclose a single fuse and a single switch (See PEDKE, Fig.2, Items#F1 and 34),
Even though PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose a 1:1 ratio between fuses and switches (See PEDKE, Fig.2, discloses one fuse F1 and a corresponding switch 34).
However, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE do not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one switch is provided for each of the at least one fuse when there is a plurality of fuses.
PANNWITZ discloses a battery protection circuit comprising a plurality of fuses and a plurality of switches one for each fuse (See Fig.1, Items 111 to 11n and 121 to 12n).
PEDTKE, SAKURI, ONOSE and PANNWITZ are analogous art since they all deal with battery protection circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE with the teachings of PANNWITZ by replacing the single fuse and switch with a plurality of fuses and a switches, each one switch corresponding to one fuse for the benefit of designing the components (fuses and switches) to each correspond to a rating of only a fraction of the nominal current (See PANNWITZ, Abstract and Par.3).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEDTKE in view of SAKURI and ONOSE and in further view of KNOEDGEN (US 2003/0095369 A1, hereinafter KNOEDGEN).
Regarding claim 19, PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 10 as discussed above, however PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE do not disclose wherein the at least one switch includes two switches in parallel, and the at least one fuse includes two fuses in parallel.
KNOEDGEN discloses a battery protection circuit comprising at least one switch and at least one fuse wherein the at least one switch includes two switches in parallel (See Fig.2, Items#S1-SN), and the at least one fuse includes two fuses in parallel (See Fig.2, Items#F1-FN).
PEDTKE, SAKURI, ONOSE and KNOEDGEN are analogous art since they all deal with battery protection circuits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by PEDTKE, SAKURI and ONOSE by using a plurality of parallel connected fuses activated by a plurality of parallel connected switches for the benefit of providing added protection to the battery by using a plurality of smaller rated fuses instead of using one large rated fuse (See KNOEDGEN Pars.6 and 21, discloses the problem with using one large high rated fuse).
Regarding claim 20, PEDTKE, SAKURI, ONOSE and KNOEDGEN disclose the protective apparatus as recited in claim 19 wherein the voltage comparator is connected directly to each of the two fuses (See PEDTKE, Fig.2, discloses control subsystem 40 is directly connected to the fuse F1, replacing the single fuse with a plurality of fuses connected in parallel would result in a plurality of parallel fuses directly connected to the control subsystem 40).
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 AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights