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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received 11/03/2025:
Claims 1,6-8,21,26-36 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
The previous objection to claim 6 has been overcome in light of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 24 recites “…the polyethylene of the first insulating layer forms a first adhesive sublayer facing the second insulating layer, the polyethylene of the second insulating layer forms a second adhesive sublayer facing the first insulating layer and directly adhering to the first insulating layer thereby forming the boundary around portions of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer”.
The instant disclosure recites: “… each of first insulating layer 110 and second insulating layer 120 includes an adhesive sublayer disposed on at least one surface, facing a corresponding conductive layer…These adhesive sublayers may be also used for directly laminating first insulating layer 110 and second insulating layer 120 (beyond the conductive layer boundaries)”(P61) and “First insulating layer 110 and second insulating layer 120 may include (or formed from) polyimide (Pl), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl fluoride (PVF), polyamide (PA), or polyvinyl butyral (PVB)”(P62).
Therefore, for the purpose of compact prosecution, if a reference teaches an insulating layer may comprise polyethylene and that the insulating layer may have an adhesive layer the limitations of claim 24 will be met. The materials that comprise the insulating layer will be interpreted as those that may comprise the adhesive layer. This interpretation is supported by the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-8. 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 2018/0190960) in view of Coakley et al. (US 2017/0094802).
Regarding claim 1, Harris teaches a multilayered flexible interconnect comprising:
a first insulating layer 380; a second insulating layer 380/126;
a first conductive layer, or second interconnect plate 162; disposed between the first insulating layer 380/126 and the second insulating layer 380/126 and directly interfacing the first insulating layer; and
a second conductive layer, or second current carrying plate 161, disposed between and directly interfacing each of the first conductive layer 162 and the second insulating layer 380/126 (Fig. 9), wherein:
the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer directly adhere to each other forming a boundary around portions of the first conductive layer 162 and the second conductive layer 161 thereby maintaining orientation of the first conductive layer 162 and the second conductive layer 161 relative to each other (P114-118.124; Fig. 3B)
Harris teaches the first conductive layer 162 may have a thickness of about 50 micrometers to about 300 micrometers (P97).
Since the claimed upper limit of about 300 micrometers is close to the prior art lower limit of 500 micrometers, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the performance in the prior art range of about 50 micrometers to about 300 micrometers would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range.
Furthermore, modified Harris teaches using a thickness for the first conductive layer that is the same as, or thicker than the collector layer, which has a thickness of about 300 micrometers to about 200 micrometers (P97) and that the thickness of the first conductive layer may be any suitable thickness to provide desired carrying capacity, ease of interconnection, to facilitate connection of the tabs to the cell (e.g., laser welding, spot welding, wire bonding, use of conductive adhesives) and/or the like (P97). Consequently, it would have been obvious to person having reasonable skill in the art to employ a thickness within the claimed range of 500 micrometers or more. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” MPEP 2144.05
Harris teaches the first and second insulating layer may comprise multiple layers and comprise a plastic, a polymer, or any material to provide electrical isolation and support (P114.128.142).
Harris teaches the first insulating layer 380 and second insulating layer 380/126 may comprise any material that can electrically and/or thermally insulate layers such as polymers while holding and supporting said structures (P114-117.142).
Harris is silent in teaching at least one of the first and second insulating layer comprise one of the claimed materials; however, Coakley, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a multilayered flexible interconnect with a first and second insulating layer on either side of conductive layers (P83-84.138-139.158).
Coakley also teaches forming the insulating layers of a material that provides electrical isolation, adhesion, and support and can be made of a polymer or plastic such as polyethylene to ensure proper alignment of the layers (P83-85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have at least one of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer of Harris comprise polyethylene as taught by Coakley to ensure alignment of layers, providing proper adhesion and electrical isolation and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143 B Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 6, modified Harris teaches the first conductive layer 162 and the second conductive layer 161 are welded together (P95-97) and the layers may be connected together at multiple welded locations, or windows/holes separated from each other to prevent excessive current from accumulating at any particular connection point (P95.146.121.170-171)
Regarding claim 7, modified Harris teaches the second insulating layer comprises welding openings, or vision windows that allow for connection based on welding (P148-150) the welding openings aligned between layers and allowing easier access to layers for coupling alignment and laser welding (P148-150; Fig. 5) and to have multiple separated connection points to prevent excessive current from accumulating at any particular connection point (P170-171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the welding openings of the layers including the second insulating layer as the welding locations of the first and second conductive plate and therefore have each of the multiple welded locations is provided within one of the welding openings (P114-120.150-151.161). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, modified Harris teaches the first conductive layer 162 has a uniform thickness throughout an entire boundary of the first conductive layer 162; and the second conductive layer 161 has a uniform thickness throughout an entire boundary of the second conductive layer 161 (P96-98; Fig. 3.5).
Regarding claim 21, modified Harris teaches at least one of the first conductive layer 162 and the second conductive layer 161 comprises flexible tabs 163, each comprising a contact pad 163/184 for connecting to the first conductive layer 162 and the second conductive layer 161 and protruding past boundaries of the first insulating layer 380/126 and the second insulating layer 380/26 (P115-120.132.136; Fig. 3.5.7C).
Regarding claim 22, modified Harris teaches the first and second insulating layer may comprise multiple layers and comprise a plastic, a polymer, or any material to provide electrical isolation and support (P114.128.142).
Harris is silent in teaching at least one of the first and second insulating layer comprise polyethylene; however, Coakley, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a multilayered flexible interconnect with a first and second insulating layer on either side of conductive layers (P83-84.138-139.158).
Coakley also teaches forming the insulating layers of a material that provides electrical isolation, adhesion, and support and can be made of a polymer or plastic such as polyethylene to ensure proper alignment of the layers (P83-85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have at least one of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer of Harris comprise polyethylene as taught by Coakley to ensure alignment of layers, providing proper adhesion and electrical isolation and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143 B Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 23, modified Harris teaches the first and second insulating layer may comprise multiple layers and comprise a plastic, a polymer, or any material to provide electrical isolation and support (P114.128.142).
Harris is silent in teaching the first and second insulating layer comprise polyethylene; however, Coakley, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches a multilayered flexible interconnect with a first and second insulating layer on either side of conductive layers (P83-84.138-139.158).
Coakley also teaches forming the insulating layers of a material that provides electrical isolation, adhesion, and support and can be made of a polymer or plastic such as polyethylene to ensure proper alignment of the layers (P83-85.139.184).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer of Harris comprise polyethylene as taught by Coakley to ensure alignment of layers, providing proper adhesion and electrical isolation and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143 B Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 24, modified Harries teaches the first insulating layer and second insulating layer directly adhered together form a retaining structure to isolate the conductive plates from the other parts of the cell and to maintain alignment between interconnect layer and the cell preventing deformation, or misalignment of the window (P114-117; Fig. 3B).
Modified Harris in view of Coakley teaches the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer are directly adhered to each other forming a boundary around portions of the first and second conductive layers. The first insulating layer, including polyethylene, includes a first adhesive sublayer and the second adhesive sublayer, as a part of the second insulating layer including polyethylene, where both adhesive sublayers face inward to prevent deformation/movement and adhere the interconnect to the cells or other components while preventing conductive layers from directly contacting other parts of the cell (P83-86.96.100.184.190; Fig. 13C-14B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the polyethylene of the first insulating layer of modified Harris form a first adhesive sublayer facing the second insulating layer, the polyethylene of the second insulating layer of modified Harris forms a second adhesive sublayer facing the first insulating layer and directly adhering to the first insulating layer thereby forming the boundary around portions of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer, as taught by Coakley, to prevent deformation and misalignment while preventing direct contact of the conductive layers with other cell components. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 25, modified Harris in view of Coakley teaches the first adhesive sublayer is further adhered to the first conductive layer, and the second adhesive sublayer is further adhered to the second conductive layer (Harris; P114-117.128; Fig. 3B & Coakley; P82-86.114.138-139.184-185; Fig. 13C-15)
Regarding claim 26, modified Harris teaches the first insulating layer 380 comprises welding opening, or windows, exposing parts of the first conductive layer 162 such as the tab (P109.119-120.144.150; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 27, modified Harris teaches a third conductive layer 152/151/121; and a third insulating layer 380/126, wherein the third conductive layer 152/151/121 is positioned between the second insulating layer 380/126 and the third insulating layer 380/126 such that the third insulating layer isolates the third conductive layer 152/151/121 from environment and supports the third conductive layer 152/151/121 relative to the second insulating layer (P94-95; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, modified Harris teaches the third conductive layer 152/151/121 comprises aluminum (P99).
Regarding claim 29, modified Harris is silent in explicitly teaching the first conductive layer 162 has a thickness of at least 350 µm, but teaches the first conductive layer 162 may be any suitable thickness in order to provide a desired current carrying capacity, ease of interconnection, facilitation connection of tabs to cells, etc., and teaches an example thickness range of about 50 µm mm to about 300 µm (P96-97). The first conductive layer 162 may also be thicker than, or of the same thickness, as the second conductive layer 161 and an example thickness range of about 300 µm to about 200 µm (P96-97).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the thickness of the first conductive layer 162 be the same as, or thicker than the second conductive layer 161, and therefore have a thickness of at least 350 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 30, modified Harris teaches the first conductive layer 162 and the second conductive layer 161 have the same, or similar thickness (P96).
Regarding claim 31, modified Harris teaches the first conductive layer 162 and the second conductive layer 161 have different thicknesses (P96-98).
Regarding claim 32, modified Harris teaches a connector having a terminal connected to the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer, or a sensing layer may be within traces of a printed circuit board (PCB) or sensing board, of the first and second conductive layer 161/162/122, (P139.172-176) wherein the integrated circuit board comprises a connector, or lead/terminal having a terminal, or end, electrically connected to the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (P113.138-139.166-167.173-175).
Regarding claim 33, modified Harris teaches the terminal of the connector, or end of the lead/terminal is electrically connected to the first and second conductive layer 161/162/122 using a transition trace or ribbon of a circuit board having a different composition than the first conductive layer and second conductive layer (P138-139.141.172-176).
Regarding claim 34, modified Harris teaches at least one of the first conductive layer 162 and second conductive layer 161 are formed of aluminum (P90).
Regarding claim 35, modified Harris teaches both the first conductive layer 162 and second conductive layer 161 are formed of aluminum (P90).
Regarding claim 36, modified Harris is silent in teaching the multilayer flexible interconnect is configured to an electrical current of greater than 100 A; however, modified Harris teaches using a suitable thickness of the conductive layers to provide a desired current carrying capacity, such that capacity isn’t dependent on thickness, can be scaled or sized based on any suitable use and may provide capacity high and reliable enough for mobile industrial equipment, automobiles, etc. (P91.97.126-127.177).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the interconnect system with a capacity large enough for any suitable use and arrive at the claimed capacitance of 100 A.
A claim may be anticipated by a reference disclosing a device that includes each and every structural limitation in the claim and that is capable of performing each and every functional limitation in the claim. Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. MPEP 2114
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
Applicant argues Harris fails to teach the first conductive layer has the claimed thickness of 500 micrometers or more.
Examiner notes that Harris teaches the first conductive layer, or second interconnect plate 162 may be configured with a thickness of between about 0.05 (mm) and about 0.3 mm, and also that any suitable thicknesses may be used, for example in order to provide a desired current carrying capacity, ease of interconnection, to facilitate connection of the tabs to the cell (e.g., laser welding, spot welding, wire bonding, use of conductive adhesives) and/or the like (P97).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, give the general guidance of Harris, to explore ranges outside and above the broad range of Harris based on method of manufacture or desired results, and arrive at a thickness within the claimed range.
Furthermore, modified Harris teaches embodiments where the first conductive layer, or second interconnect plate 162 is both thicker, the same thickness, and thinner than current collector plates. The collectors are taught to have a thickness between 0.3 mm and 2.0 mm (P97). Therefore, either in forming the conductive plate in a similar thickness or thicker than the collector layer, and/or in optimizing properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the claimed range to have similar results. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."
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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752