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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, and 12; claims 1-20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment and newly found prior art, i.e., Sato suggests the overlapping feature of the cable and bus bars along the thickness direction and the parallel nature of the first connecting portion and flexible flat cable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 2017/0179458), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding Claim 1, Sato suggests a battery module (10), comprising: a plurality of batteries (11), each battery comprising a first electrode and a second electrode (13, 13), one of the first electrode and the second electrode being a positive electrode, and the other of the first electrode and the second electrode being a negative electrode ([0035]); a plurality of bus bars (40, 40a), each bus bar connecting the first electrode of one battery and the second electrode of another battery (e.g., via 41a), at least one of the bus bars being disposed obliquely (42 of 40a is slanted by an angle θ, hence disposed obliquely); a flexible flat cable (30) comprising a plurality of wires (32) disposed in parallel (see e.g., Fig. 9), the at least one of the bus bars and the flexible flat cable at least partially overlapping each other along a thickness direction of the at least one of the bus bars (e.g., in Fig. 9: 45a of the bus bar 40a partially overlaps 33 of flat cable 30 in the “height direction” (direction labelled in Fig. 8)); and a plurality of connecting terminals (31), each comprising a first connecting portion and a second connecting portion extending from the first connecting portion along a direction in parallel with an extending direction (“alignment direction”) of the flexible flat cable (30), the first connecting portion being electrically connected to a corresponding bus bar (i.e., at 45a), and the second connecting portion being electrically connected to a corresponding wire of the flexible flat cable (see Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Sato suggests a battery module (10), comprising: a plurality of batteries (11) arranged in at least one group (see Figs.), each battery comprising a first electrode and a second electrode (13, 13), one of the first electrode and the second electrode being a positive electrode, and the other of the first electrode and the second electrode being a negative electrode ([0035]); a plurality of bus bars (40, 40a) each connecting the first electrode of one battery and the second electrode of another battery which is disposed adjacent to the one battery (see Figs.), each bus bar being disposed obliquely (42 of 40a is slanted by an angle θ, hence disposed obliquely); a flexible flat cable (30) comprising a plurality of wires (32), each bus bar (e.g., 40a) and the flexible flat cable (30) at least partially overlapping each other along a thickness direction of each bus bar (i.e., in Fig. 9: 45a of bus bar 40a partially overlaps 33 of flat cable 30 in the “height direction” (direction labelled in Fig. 8)); and a plurality of connecting terminals (31) each comprising a first connecting portion electrically connected to a corresponding bus bar (to 45a of 40a, see Fig. 9) and a second connecting portion (extending toward 32, Fig. 9) electrically connected to a corresponding wire of the flexible flat cable (30); the second connecting portion extending from the first connecting portion along a direction in parallel with an extending direction of the flexible flat cable (i.e., both extending along the “alignment direction” in Fig. 9).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Sato suggests the first electrode and the second electrode of each battery are disposed along a first direction (i.e., “alignment orthogonal direction”), and the plurality of batteries are disposed along a second direction (i.e., “alignment direction”) perpendicular to the first direction; and wherein the bus bar (e.g., 42 of 45a (40a, 40)) and the first direction and the bus bar and the second direction both have an included angle, i.e., θ, see e.g., Figs. 2 and 9.
Regarding Claims 3, and 14, Sato suggests the first electrode of the one battery (e.g., 13) and the second electrode of the another battery (e.g., 13) are disposed obliquely along a diagonal line, see e.g., [0034].
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (cited above), in view of Zhao et al. (US 2018/0019451), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “fixed… by soldering”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, examiner interprets the claim such the elements are fixed. Sato suggests the first connecting portion is fixed to the bus bar (welding, brazing, see [0044]) to enable an electrical connection; Sato shows the first connecting portion is a round shape, not a flat plate. However, the shape of the first connecting portions would be a matter of design choice, as would be the method of fixation. Zhao suggests a reliable connection may be obtained by affixing a flat wire (140) to the bus bar 130 by welding, soldering, crimping, adhesive, etc., see e.g., [0027]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the first connecting portion is in a shape of a flat plate and is fixed to the corresponding bus bar (e.g., by welding, soldering, etc.) with the expectation of obtaining a reliable connection between the first connecting portion and bus bar to enable an electrical connection therebetween.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (cited above), in view of Ichikawa et al. (US 2016268579, of record), hereinafter Ichikawa.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 15-16, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “fixed… by soldering”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, examiner interprets the claim such the elements are fixed. Sato suggests the linear conductor 31 and the busbar 40 may be electrically connected to each other by using a conductor member (not illustrated), [0044]; Sato does not suggest the first connecting portion is a flat plate, and the second connecting portion comprising a base portion and a protrusion portion extending from the base portion, wherein the protrusion portion is adapted to pierce the flexible flat cable so that the second connecting portion is electrically connected to the corresponding wire of the flexible flat cable.
PNG
media_image1.png
373
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ichikawa to suggest the electrical connection between the flat wire cable 40 and the bus bar (32A) is achieved through a connecting terminal (35). The connecting terminal includes a first connecting portion (39) having a flat plate shape (Fig. 7B) fixed to the bus bar (32A) and a second connecting portion (37) comprises a base portion and a protrusion portion extending from the base portion (see annotated Fig. 7B of Ichikawa); the protrusion portion is adapted to pierce the flexible flat cable (see Fig. 7B, which shows the protrusion portion through the insulation 23A and in direct contact with the bare wire 21), so that the second connecting portion is electrically connected to the corresponding wire of the flexible flat cable by simple operation, see [0063, 0077]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a connecting terminal to connect the flat wire cable to the bus bar with the expectation of achieving an electrical connecting between the flat wire cable and bus bar by simple operation, as suggested by Ichikawa.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Ichikawa, further in view of Bowden et al. (US 3,831,132, of record), hereinafter Bowden.
Regarding Claims 6, and 17, Sato was modified by Ichikawa to suggest the second connecting portion of the connecting terminal (see rejection of claims 4-5 and 15-16); Ichikawa does not suggest the base portion comprises a raised portion protruding toward the flexible flat cable and adapted to support the flexible flat cable; and wherein the protrusion portion is bent to be fixed on the corresponding wire of the flexible flat cable. However, Bowden suggests a connecting terminal (10, 14, 16) associated with a cable (34, 36); the base portion comprises a raised portion (22, 48) protruding toward the cable (36) and adapted to support the flexible flat cable (see e.g., Figs.1-4,6-8); and wherein the protrusion portion (18, 26, Fig. 2) is bent to be fixed on the corresponding wire of the cable, see e.g., Figs. 1-7; the protrusion portions and the raised portions aid in mechanically gripping the wire to allow for excellent, tight electrical engagement that does not loosen as current is carried/interrupted, col. 2 lines 15-30, col. 3 lines 1-16, lines 64-68, col. 4 lines 14-68. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the base portion of the connecting terminal of Sato as modified by Ichikawa includes a raised portion protruding toward the flexible flat cable and adapted to support the flexible flat cable, and the protrusion portion is bent to be fixed on the corresponding wire of the flexible flat cable with the expectation of mechanically gripping the wire, thereby allowing for excellent, tight electrical engagement that does not loosen as current is carried/interrupted, as suggested by Bowden.
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, as set forth under the rejection of claims 6 and 17, Sato was modified by Ichikawa and Bowden to suggest the raised portions (i.e., 48, and 22). Bowden suggests the raised portions (i.e., 48, 22) comprise an arched supporting surface (e.g. volcanoes 48 (Figs. 6 and 8), see also 22 in Figs. 3-4) to support the cable.
Regarding Claims 8, 9, and 19, Sato was modified by Ichikawa to suggest the second connecting portion of the connecting terminal (see rejections of claims 4-5, and 15-16); Ichikawa does not suggest (i) the base portion comprises a raised portion protruding toward the flexible flat cable, and the raised portion comprises a tip to pierce the flexible flat cable, (ii) a plurality of the raised portions provided on and stamped from the base portion, and the raised portions are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the base portion, (iii) the base portion comprises a plurality of raised portions provided on and stamped from the base portion, and the raised portions are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the base portion, and each raised portion comprises a tip to pierce the flexible flat cable; and wherein the protrusion portion is bent to be fixed on the corresponding wire of the flexible flat cable. However, Bowden suggests a connecting terminal (10, 14, 16) associated with a cable (34, 36); the second connecting portion (14, 16) of the connecting terminal includes a base portion comprising a (plurality of) raised portion(s) (e.g., 22, 48), provided on and stamped from the base portion, protruding toward the cable (36, see Fig. 9), the raised portion(s) are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the base portion, and each raised portion comprises a tip to pierce (bite) the cable (Fig. 9), and are adapted to support the cable; the protrusion portion (18, 26) is bent to be fixed on the corresponding wire of the cable, see e.g., Figs. 1-7; the protrusion portion and the raised portion(s) aid in mechanically gripping the wire to allow for tight engagement that does not loosen as current is carried/interrupted, thereby allowing excellent tight electrical engagement, col 2 lines 18-30, 53-55, col. 3 lines 1-16, lines 64-68, col. 4 lines 14-68. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the base portion of Sato as modified by Ichikawa includes (i) a raised portion protruding toward the flexible flat cable, and the raised portion comprises a tip to pierce the flexible flat cable, (ii) a plurality of the raised portions provided on and stamped from the base portion, and the raised portions are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the base portion, (iii) a plurality of raised portions provided on and stamped from the base portion, the raised portions are disposed at intervals along an extending direction of the base portion, each raised portion comprises a tip to pierce the flexible flat cable, and the protrusion portion is bent to be fixed on the corresponding wire of the flexible flat cable with the expectation of excellent electrical engagement that does not loosen as current is carried, as suggested by Bowden.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Ichikawa and Bowden, further in view of Yoshioka (US 2015/0188244, of record), hereinafter Yoshioka.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Sato was modified by Ichikawa and Bowden to suggest the protrusion portion (see rejection of claims 5, and 16); the protrusion portion suggested in the prior art comprises a first protrusion portion extending from one side of the base portion and a second protrusion portion extending from the other side of the base portion, see e.g., Fig. 7B of Ichikawa and 18, 26 in Figs. 1-3, 6 of Bowden. The modification does not suggest the first protrusion portion and the second protrusion portion are disposed in a staggered manner along a direction perpendicular to the extending direction of the base portion. However, Yoshioka suggests the protrusion portion of the connecting terminal (4) comprises a first protrusion portion extending from one side of the base portion and a second protrusion portion extending from the other side of the base portion such that the first protrusion portion and the second protrusion portion (44) are disposed in a staggered manner along a direction perpendicular to the extending direction of the base portion, see e.g., Fig. 3; the first protrusion portion and the second protrusion portion (44) is expected to retain the wire (3), thereby fixing the connecting terminal (4) to the wire (3), see e.g., [0034, 0038]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the protrusion portion comprises a first protrusion portion extending from one side of the base portion and a second protrusion portion extending from the other side of the base portion such that the first protrusion portion and the second protrusion portion are disposed in a staggered manner along a direction perpendicular to the extending direction of the base portion with the expectation of retaining/fixing the wire with the connecting terminal, as suggested by Yoshioka
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729