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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received 05/08/2026:
Claims 1,6-8,21-31,35, and 37-40 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 32-34 and 36 are canceled. Claims 37-40 are new.
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 § 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.
Claims 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…the second conductive layer comprises a plurality of flexible tabs extending past the first conductive layer for connecting to battery cells…”. Claims 37 and 40 recite “…each of the plurality of flexible tabs comprises a conductor tab, for connecting to a battery terminal, a conductor neck, extending from the conductor tab to the first conductive layer…”. The specification does not appear to teach the flexible tabs of the second conductive layer also connected to the first conductive layer and would amount to new matter. As best understood, claims 37 and 40 appear to be limiting the space that the neck occupies, where the conductor neck extends from the conductor tab to the main body of the second conductive layer based on the disclosure. Claims 38-39 are rejected for depending on claim 37.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 29 recites “…the first conductive layer has a thickness of at least 350 micrometers…” while claim 1 recites “…the first conductive layer has a thickness of at least 500 micrometers…”. Therefore, the range of dependent claim 29 is broader than the range of independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 21-31, 35, and 37-40 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 or overmolding material; a second insulating layer 380/126 or overmolding material (P181.184);
a first conductive layer, or second conductive plate 122/128-A; 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 first conductive plate 121/128-B, disposed between and directly interfacing each of the first conductive layer 122/128-A and the second insulating layer 380/126 wherein: the second conductive layer 121/128-B comprises a plurality of flexible tabs 153/163 extending past the first conductive layer 122/128-A for connecting to battery cells (P157-163.181.184; Fig. 13-14).
The first and second conductive plates are stacked directly atop one another to divide current and result in reduced resistive losses and consequent heat generation in conductive plates while allowing more manufacturing methods and variability, lowering cost (P139-140.158-163). The first and second insulating layer, or an overmolding material forms a package assembly holding the first and second plate in a fixed location relative to each other (P181) forming a boundary around conductive plates defining the shape of the interconnect assembly (P114-118.124.181; Fig. 3B). Harris also teaches connecting tabs to current carrying plate instead of interconnect plate (P135).
Harris teaches including an opening in the flexible tabs at least partially extending through a thickness of the conductive layer to improve safety preventing short-circuiting (P131-133; Fig. 5).
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 plurality of flexible tabs in embodiments wherein the first and second conductive plate directly overlap with tabs of the second plate extending past the first plate include openings to improve safety.
Harris teaches the first conductive layer, or conductive layers may be made of any suitable thickness selected such that cooling means is not necessary and capacity is not dependent on 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, with examples wherein a plate providing both connective and current carrying capabilities has a thickness of 1000 micrometers, and of current carry plates with a thickness between 300 and 2000 micrometers and the thickness is (P97.99-100.140-142.145.163-166).
A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. Where 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.” MPEP 2144
“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, or overmolding layers may comprise a plastic, a polymer, or any material to provide electrical isolation and support (P114.128.142).
Harris teaches the first insulating layer and second insulating layer, or overmolding layers may comprise any material that can electrically and/or thermally insulate layers such as polymers while holding and supporting said structures (P114-117.128.139-142.181.184).
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 (P83-84.138-139.158.189-194).
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
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 6, modified Harris teaches the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer may be joined together at multiple locations separated from each other and may be welded together (P95-97.170-172) 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 and alignment of the plates (P114-120.150-151.161.170-171; Fig. 4).
While modified Harris is silent in teaching the second insulating layer comprising welding openings for each of the multiple welding locations, Coakley of modified Harris teaches including slits of openings in an insulating layer that allow for welding between conductive layers thus simplifying interconnection (P154-156).
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 openings within the second insulating layer as the welding locations of the first and second conductive plate to have aligned conductive plates with multiple welding locations simplifying interconnection and to preserve space as taught by Coakley and therefore have each of the multiple welded locations is provided within one of the welding openings. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 8, modified Harris teaches the first conductive layer has a uniform thickness throughout an entire boundary of the first conductive layer; and the second conductive layer has a uniform thickness throughout an entire boundary of the second conductive layer (P143-145.165; Fig. 12-14).
Regarding claim 21, modified Harris teaches at least one of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer comprises flexible tabs 153/163, each comprising a contact pad 153/163/184 for connecting to the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer and protruding past boundaries of the first insulating layer 380/126 and the second insulating layer 380/26 (P115-120.132.136.157-163.181.184; Fig. 3.5.7C.13.14).
Regarding claim 22, modified Harris in view of Coakley teaches the first and second insulating layer may comprise polyethylene as a material that provides electrical isolation, adhesion, and support to ensure proper alignment of the layers (P83-85.138-139.158).
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 in view of Coakley teaches the first and second insulating layer may comprise polyethylene as a material that provides electrical isolation, adhesion, and support to ensure proper alignment of the layers (P83-85.138-139.158).
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 (P114-117.181.184; 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; P114-117.128.181.184; 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 such as the tab (P109.119-120.144.150.181.184; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 27, modified Harris teaches any number of conductive layers maybe be used 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).
Wherein first and second conductive layers are the plurality of layers 128 of layers 122 in Fig. 11A (where tabs are split between layers to divide current) and third conductive layer is interpreted as conductive layer 121 with third insulating layer 126, where third conductive layer is positioned between second insulating layer and third insulating layer such that third insulating layer 126 isolated the third conductive layer 121 from environment and supports the third conductive layer relative to the second insulating layer, or overmolding 126/380 (P99.114-115.139-142.148.151.181.184; Fig, 1B.11A)
Regarding claim 28, modified Harris teaches the third conductive layer 152/151/121 comprises aluminum (P99.145.163).
Regarding claim 29, modified Harris is silent in explicitly teaching the first conductive layer has a thickness of at least 350 µm, but teaches the first conductive layer, or conductive layers may be made of any suitable thickness selected such that cooling means is not necessary and capacity is not dependent on 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, with examples wherein a plate providing both connective and current carrying capabilities has a thickness of 1000 micrometers, and of current carry plates with a thickness between 300 and 2000 micrometers and the thickness is (P97.99-100.140-142.145.163-166).
A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. Where 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.” MPEP 2144 “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
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 be the same as, or thicker than the second conductive layer, 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 and the second conductive layer have the same, or similar thickness (P165).
Regarding claim 31, modified Harris teaches the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer have different thicknesses (P163.165).
Regarding claim 35, modified Harris teaches both the first conductive layer 162 and second conductive layer 161 are formed of aluminum (P90).
Regarding claim 37, modified Harris teaches the plurality of flexible tabs comprises a conductor tab, for connecting to a battery terminal, a conductor neck, extending from the conductor tab to the first conductive layer, and the opening 154/164 at least partially extends through the thickness of the conductor neck (P132-133; Fig. 5A/B).
Modified Harris is silent in teaching the opening at least partially extends through the thickness of the conductor tab; however, Harris teaches the holes may be located anywhere that an open on the tab would isolate the connected cells from the rest of the circuit of the interconnect assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to change the position of the hole from the neck to the conductor tab to have a convenient place of disconnection and connection since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 The results are not unexpected because merely moving the opening from the neck to the tab does not change the function of the module, the opening, or the flexible or conductor tab and provides the exact functionality taught by modified Harris- to improve safety by providing a disconnection point between the battery and interconnect.
Regarding claim 38, modified Harris teaches the opening only partially extends through the thickness of the conductor tab (P132-133; Fig. 5A/B).
Regarding claim 39, modified Harris teaches the opening fully extends through the thickness of the conductor tab (P132-133; Fig. 5A/B).
Regarding claim 40, modified Harris teaches the plurality of flexible tabs comprises a conductor tab, for connecting to a battery terminal, a conductor neck, extending from the conductor tab to the first conductive layer, and the opening 154/164 at least partially extends through the thickness of the conductor neck (P132-133; Fig. 5A/B). It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B
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 the new claim limitations of independent claim 1 are not taught by the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Harris teaches connected first and second insulating layer as an overmolding material forming a package around conductive plate to retain, hold, and support their positions relative to one another (P114-117.142.181.184). Harris teaches instead of having all of the plurality of flexible tabs in the same conductive layer, one could split the tabs between stacked directly connected conductive layers to reduce cost and resistive losses (P157-166.181.18 – i.e., wherein second plate comprises third window and first plate comprises a first window and a first tab associated with the first window, and the first tab of the first plate extends through the third window of the second plate and wherein the overmold material forms a package assembly holding the first plate and the second plate in fixed location relative to each other, wherein the overmold material is electrically non-conductive, and wherein the overmold material forms an overall shape of the interconnect assembly, including the first window, the second window, the third window, and the fourth window).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights