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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 Mar 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 Mar 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Shoji (US 2018/0090920) in view of Takase (US 2013/0164595), Applicant argues that the structure taught by Takase, which includes vent holes 35 (see e.g. Takase: Fig. 1) fail to read on the claimed grid structure recited in claim 1. This is because, in Applicant’s view, there is no disclosure in Takase that these vent holes are used to allow sparks to escape from the busbar housing portion 20. Additionally, Applicant argues that the relatively small size of the vent holes makes it highly unlikely that sparks would escape through these holes.
In response to this argument, the Examiner maintains that, even if Takase does not explicitly recognize that these vent holes allow sparks to escape from the housing, the holes would nonetheless allow for sparks to escape. Further, while Applicant asserts that the relatively small size of the vent holes makes it highly unlikely that sparks would escape through these holes, there is nothing in the evidence of record that establishes that the vent holes are too small to allow even some sparks to pass therethrough.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the newly-amended feature of “wherein the grid structure covers a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, the horizontal openings and the vertical openings of the grid structure are sized to prevent a human finger from contacting the fusing bus bar and configured to permit sparks to escape externally in the event of a short-circuit” places the application in condition for allowance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the prior art renders this limitation obvious, as set forth in the claim rejections below.
The previous objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the amended specification, submitted 12 Mar 2026.
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, and 15 under 35 USC 112(a) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims submitted 12 Mar 2026.
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.
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, 3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji (US 2018/0090920) in view of Takase (US 2013/0164595).
As to claim 1, Shoji discloses an insulating case comprising:
a fusing bus bar configured to electrically connect to one end of a battery module (see e.g. busbar 2, which is connected to terminal 102, which reads on a first terminal, Shoji: [0023] and Figs. 1-2);
a housing disposed between the battery module and the fusing bus bar (see e,g, housing case 3, which is positioned between battery cells 100 and busbar 2, Shoji: [0023]-[0024] and Figs. 1 and 4) and configured to prevent the fusing bus bar from contacting an external object (see e.g. housing case 3, which comprises cover 32 which prevents an external object from contacting busbar 2, Shoji: Fig. 5) the housing including:
a lower housing (see e.g. bottom portion 31c, Shoji: [0024] and Fig. 5) disposed under the fusing bus bar and having an open upper surface (see e.g. housing case 3, which is disposed under busbar 2 and has an open upper surface); and an upper housing covering the open upper surface of the lower housing (see e.g. cover 32, which covers the open upper surface of bottom portion 31c, Shoji: Fig. 5).
Shoji’s upper housing does not comprise a grid structure that includes a plurality of horizontal openings and a plurality of vertical opening, the grid structure substantially covering an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, and
wherein the grid structure covers a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, the horizontal openings and the vertical openings of the grid structure are sized to prevent a human finger from contacting the fusing bus bar and configured to permit sparks to escape externally in the event of a short-circuit.
Takase, also working in the field of bus bar hosing design, teaches a housing for a bus bar (see e.g. housing 1, holding busbar 10, Takase: Figs. 1-2) wherein the upper housing (see e.g. cover member 70, Takase: Fig. 1) of the housing comprises a plurality of horizontal openings (see e.g. vent holes 73, Takase: Fig. 1) that substantially cover the upper surface of the fusing bus bar. Takase teaches that these openings provide ventilation and cooling to the busbar bousing (see e.g. Takase: [0060]-[0062]). The openings taught by Takase appear to be sized to prevent a human finger from contacting the fusing bus bar, and are large enough to permit sparks to escape externally in the event of a short-circuit (see e.g. Fig. 1).
While Takase does not explicitly teach an additional set of openings such that the upper housing also comprises a plurality of vertical openings, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to add an additional set of openings in order to increase the amount of ventilation provided to the housing, and arranging this additional set of openings into a grid structure such that comprise a plurality of vertical openings would fail to yield any new or unexpected benefit that would not have been reasonably expected by said artisan.
Further, while Takase’s vent openings do not cover a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that increasing the number of vent openings such that the vent openings cover a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar would increase the ventilation provided to the busbar housing.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating case of Shoji by adding to the upper housing the grid structure suggested by Takase wherein said grid structure includes a plurality of horizontal openings and a plurality of vertical opening, the grid structure substantially covers an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, and wherein the grid structure covers a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, the horizontal openings and the vertical openings of the grid structure are sized to prevent a human finger from contacting the fusing bus bar and configured to permit sparks to escape externally in the event of a short-circuit. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the insulating case of Shoji in the manner in order to provide ventilation to the busbar housing, as taught by Takase.
As to claim 3, Shoji in view of Takase teaches the insulating case of claim 1, wherein a section of the lower housing (see e.g. bottom portion 31c, Shoji: Fig. 2) of Shoji is divided by a partition such that the section of the lower housing is insulated from a terminal block (see e.g. the partition indicated in Illustration 1 below, which insulates a section of 31 from terminal 102) disposed at an opposite side of the lower housing and is not connected to the fusing bus bar (see Shoji: Figs. 2, 5, and Illustration 1 below. The partition divides the housing such that one section is insulated from both the terminal blocks and the fusing busbar in the other section).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Illustration 1: Reproduction with modification of Fig. 2 of Shoji.
As to claim 5, Shoji in view of Takase teaches the insulating case of claim 1, wherein an upper housing of the insulating case that is coupled to the lower housing via a locking hook and a lock receiving portion (see e.g. Shoji: [0025] and Figs. 4-5, cover 32 and bottom portion 31c are coupled via locking hook 37 and lock receiving portion 36) that can reasonably be interpreted to be a snap-fit manner of coupling the upper and lower housings.
As to claim 8, Shoji discloses an insulating case comprising:
a fusing bus bar configured to electrically connect to one end of a battery module (see e.g. busbar 2, which is connected to terminal 102, which reads on a first terminal, Shoji: [0023] and Figs. 1-2);
a lower housing disposed between the battery module and the fusing bus bar and formed as a partition structure (see e.g. bottom portion 31c, which is positioned between battery cells 100 and busbar 2, Shoji: [0023]-[0024] and Figs. 1 and 4); and
an upper housing covering an upper portion of the lower housing and configured to prevent an upper surface of the fusing bar from contacting an external object (see e.g. cover 32, which covers busbar 2 and thereby prevents an upper surface of the fusing bar from contacting an external object, Shoji: [0026] and Fig. 5).
Shoji discloses an upper housing but does not disclose an upper housing including an upper surface having a grid structure that includes a plurality of horizonal openings and a plurality of vertical openings substantially covering an upper surface of the fusing bus bar,
wherein the upper housing comprises a grid structure covering a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, the horizontal openings and the vertical openings of the grid structure are sized to prevent a human finger from contacting the fusing bus bar and configured to permit sparks to escape externally in the event of a short-circuit.
Takase, also working in the field of bus bar hosing design, teaches a housing for a bus bar (see e.g. housing 1, holding busbar 10, Takase: Figs. 1-2) wherein the upper housing (see e.g. cover member 70, Takase: Fig. 1) of the housing comprises a plurality of horizontal openings (see e.g. vent holes 73, Takase: Fig. 1) that substantially cover the upper surface of the fusing bus bar. Takase teaches that these openings provide ventilation and cooling to the busbar bousing (see e.g. Takase: [0060]-[0062]). The openings taught by Takase appear to be sized to prevent a human finger from contacting the fusing bus bar, and are large enough to permit sparks to escape externally in the event of a short-circuit (see e.g. Fig. 1).
While Takase does not explicitly teach an additional set of openings such that the upper housing also comprises a plurality of vertical openings, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to add an additional set of openings in order to increase the amount of ventilation provided to the housing, and arranging this additional set of openings into a grid structure such that comprise a plurality of vertical openings would fail to yield any new or unexpected benefit that would not have been reasonably expected by said artisan.
Further, while Takase’s vent openings do not cover a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that increasing the number of vent openings such that the vent openings cover a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar would increase the ventilation provided to the busbar housing.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating case of Shoji by adding to the upper housing the grid structure suggested by Takase wherein said grid structure includes a plurality of horizontal openings and a plurality of vertical opening, the grid structure substantially covers an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, and wherein the grid structure covers a majority of an upper surface of the fusing bus bar, the horizontal openings and the vertical openings of the grid structure are sized to prevent a human finger from contacting the fusing bus bar and configured to permit sparks to escape externally in the event of a short-circuit. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the insulating case of Shoji in the manner in order to provide ventilation to the busbar housing, as taught by Takase.
As to claim 9, Shoji in view of Takase teaches the insulating case of claim 8, wherein a portion of the upper housing is in contact with the partition structure of the lower housing (see e.g. Shoji: Fig. 5 and Illustration 1 above, the cover 32 is in contact with the partition of lower housing 31c). The lower housing is recessed, but the upper housing is not (see e.g. Shoji: Fig. 5, 31c is recessed).
However, forming the upper housing of Shoji in view of Takase such that the upper housing is partially recessed would not change to function of the apparatus of Shoji in view of Takase in a patentably distinct manner or provide any new or unexpected benefit. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would therefore have recognized the instantly-claimed partially-recessed upper housing to be merely an obvious change in shape of the apparatus of Shoji in view of Takase.
As to claim 10, Shoji in view of Takase teaches the insulating case claim 8 wherein a plurality of protrusions (see e.g. hooks 37, Shoji: [0025] and Figs. 4-5) is disposed along an outer circumferential surface of the upper housing (see e.g. cover 32, Shoji: Figs. 4-5) and the plurality of protrusions are spaced apart from each other, and wherein the lower housing includes coupling grooves coupled to the protrusions in an engaging manner along an inner circumferential surface of the lower housing (see e.g. locking receiving portion 36, which read on coupling grooves, are disposed on lower housing 31c, and couple with hooks 37, Shoji: [0025] and Figs. 4-5).
This arrangement is the reverse of that of the instant claim, in which the protrusions are disposed on the outer surface of the lower housing and the coupling grooves are disposed on the upper housing. However, the protrusions and grooves of Shoji in view of Takase are known fastening structures, and reversing the respective position of the protrusions and grooves in the case of Shoji in view of Takase would have been an obvious modification to the fastening claimed structure.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji (US 2018/0090920) in view of Takase (US 2013/0164595) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brantley (US 2010/0090642).
As to claim 6, Shoji in view of Takase teaches the insulating case of claim 1, wherein the upper housing is coupled to the lower housing via a snap-fit connection (see e.g. Shoji: [0025] and Figs. 4-5, cover 32 and bottom portion 31c are coupled via locking hook 37 and lock receiving portion 36), but does not teach the upper housing coupled to the lower housing in a bolting manner.
Brantley, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches an insulating case comprising a mechanical connector (see e.g. 116, Brantley: [0025] and Figs. 2A-2B) by which two components of the case can be attached via a slidable connector (see e.g. housings 202 and 102, Brantley: [0025] and Figs. 2A-2B). Brantley further teaches that other mechanical connections such as snap-fit connectors or bolts may be used to couple the two parts of the housing together (see e.g. Brantley: [0025])
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have appreciated that replacing the snap-fit coupling of the structure taught by Shoji in view of Takase with bolts would represent an obvious substitution of structures that are art-recognized equivalents used for the same purpose of connecting housing components, as taught by Brantley.
As to claim 7, Shoji in view of Takase teaches the insulating case of claim 1, wherein the upper housing is coupled to the lower housing via a snap-fit connection (see e.g. Shoji: [0025] and Figs. 4-5, cover 32 and bottom portion 31c are coupled via locking hook 37 and lock receiving portion 36), but does not teach the upper housing coupled to the lower housing in a sliding manner.
Brantley, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches an insulating case comprising a mechanical connector (see e.g. 116, Brantley: [0025] and Figs. 2A-2B) by which two components of the case can be attached via a slidable connector (see e.g. housings 202 and 102, Brantley: [0025] and Figs. 2A-2B). Brantley further teaches that other mechanical connections such as snap-fit connectors or bolts may be used to couple the two parts of the housing together (see e.g. Brantley: [0025])
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would therefore have appreciated that replacing the snap-fit coupling of the structure taught by Shoji in view of Takase with a slidable connector would represent an obvious substitution of structures that are art-recognized equivalents used for the same purpose of connecting housing components, as taught by Brantley.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji (US 2018/0090920) in view of Takase (US 2013/0164595) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoshitaka (WO 2020100621, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 13, Shoji in view of Takase teaches the insulating case of claim 8, wherein the fusing bus bar comprises: a base plate (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 2 below);
a plurality of terminal parts disposed at both ends of the base plate (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 2 below); and an end step structure protruding downward from a terminal part (see e.g. Illustration 2 below). Shoji in view of Takase does not teach a busbar having a central bent part that comprises an inclined slit.
PNG
media_image2.png
336
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Illustration 2, reproduction with modification of Fig. 2 of Shoji.
Yoshitaka, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches an alternative design for a busbar that features a central bent part comprising an inclined slit (see e.g. Yoshitaka: Fig. 5 and Illustration 3 below). Yoshitaka further teaches that such a busbar design allows for the thin portion near the slit (see e.g. fuse section 14, Yoshitaka: [0015] and Fig. 5) to act as a fuse that melts and disconnects the busbar in the event of a short circuit or other malfunction that generates an excess current (see e.g. Yoshitaka: [0015], [0045]-[0047]).
PNG
media_image3.png
513
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Illustration 3, reproduction with modification of Fig. 5 of Yoshitaka.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to incorporate the central bent shape and inclined silt busbar design of Yoshitaka into the structure of Shoji in view of Takase. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide the structure with the fusing capability taught by Yoshitaka to protect the other components of the system in the event of a current anomaly.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji (US 2018/0090920) in view in view of Takase (US 2013/0164595) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshitaka (WO 2020100621, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 15, Shoji in view of Takase teaches the insulating case of claim 1, wherein the fusing bus bar comprises:
a base plate (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 2 above);
a plurality of terminal parts disposed at both ends of the base plate (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 2 above); and an end step structure protruding downward from a terminal part (see e.g. Illustration 2 above).
Shoji in view of Takase does not teach a busbar having a central bent part that includes an inclined slit.
Yoshitaka, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches an alternative design for a busbar that features a central bent part comprising an inclined slit (see e.g. Yoshitaka: Fig. 5 and Illustration 3 below). Yoshitaka further teaches that such a busbar design allows for the thin portion near the slit (see e.g. fuse section 14, Yoshitaka: [0015] and Fig. 5) to act as a fuse that melts and disconnects the busbar in the event of a short circuit or other malfunction that generates an excess current (see e.g. Yoshitaka: [0015], [0045]-[0047]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to incorporate the central bent shape and inclined silt busbar design of Yoshitaka into the structure of Shoji in view of Takase. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide the structure with the fusing capability taught by Yoshitaka to protect the other components of the system in the event of a current anomaly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights