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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 03/24/2026 has been withdrawn.
Additionally, the drawing objection presented in the previous office action of record is withdrawn, based on the applicant’s new drawing sheets submitted on 06/24/2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/24/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-20 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 is indefinite as a result of reciting “a plurality of battery cells each comprising a pair of electrode leads” in line 2 of the claim, “adjacent lead slits through which a pair of electrode leads of adjacent battery cells” in lines 3-4 of the claim. Here, where “a pair of electrode leads” is introduced twice, it is not clear based on the claims if the second pair of electrode leads is the same pair of electrode leads as the first pair, or if it is referring to a new pair, which may be partially overlapping with the previous pair. Based on the applicant’s figure 6, and previous discussions in interviews, a suggested rephrasing of the language of line 2 is “a plurality of battery cells each comprising two electrode leads”.
Claim 2 is indefinite as a result of reciting “when the pair of electrode leads respectively passed and extended out through the insertion slit are wound”. Here, Claim 1 does not provide antecedent basis for this recitation, reciting “an insertion slit through which the pair of electrode leads respectively passed and extended out through the pair of adjacent lead slits pass”, in lines 5-6. Here, there is only antecedent basis for the pair of electrode leads which pass through the insertion slit, as respectively passed and extended out structure is not recited in claim 1 in regards to the insertion slit.
Here, a suggested rephrasing to overcome this issue of indefiniteness is “when the pair of electrode leads that pass through the insertion slit are wound”.
Additionally, as discussed above in regards to claim 1, two pairs of electrode leads are given antecedent basis. Where claim 2 discussed electrode leads without a proper antecedent basis, it is not clear if they refer to the first pair or second pair of electrode leads presented in claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite as a result of reciting “a lead assembly comprising the pair of electrode leads”, where claim 3 depends upon claim 2, which in turn depends upon claim 1. Here, where claim 1 recites two pairs of electrode leads, as discussed above, it is unclear which pair of electrode leads claim 3 refers to with its recitation.
Claim 19 is indefinite as a result of reciting “a pair of electrode leads” in line 2 of the claim and “a pair of electrode leads” in line 5 of the claim. Here, it is unclear, based on the language of the claim, if it is required that the second pair of electrode leads be a new and distinct pair of leads from the first electrode leads, or if they may be the same pair, or a partially overlapping pair. Based on the applicant’s figure 6, and previous discussions in interviews, a suggested rephrasing of the language of line 2 is “a plurality of battery cells each comprising two electrode leads”.
Claim 20 is indefinite as a result of reciting “a lead assembly comprising the pair of electrode leads”, where claim 20 depends upon claim 19. Here, where claim 19 recites two pairs of electrode leads, as discussed above, it is unclear which pair of electrode leads claim 20 refers to with its recitation.
Additionally, Claims 2-18 and 20 are indefinite as a result of depending on an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 look to comprise allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or make obvious the limitation which requires a fastening bar frame comprising a pair of adjacent lead slits through which a pair of electrode leads of adjacent battery cells are respectively passed and extended out through, and a fastening bar containing an insertion slit through which the pair of electrode leads respectively passed and extended out through the pair of adjacent lead slits pass.
Kim ((WO 2017150807 A1), with equivalent US 10647206 B2) is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of battery modules (Abstract). Kim discloses a battery module comprising a cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells each comprising a pair of electrode leads (Abstract), as well as a fastening bar frame 210 comprising a pair of adjacent lead slits 250 through which electrode leads of adjacent battery cells are passed and extended out, shown in their figure 8, where the fastening bar frame 210 comprises pairs of adjacent lead slits through which electrode leads 135 of adjacent battery cells 110 are respectively passed and extended out through.
Here, looking to Kim’s figure 8, the second battery from the left has an electrode lead that passes through the first lead slit, while the third battery from the left has an electrode lead that passes through the second lead slit, where the first and second lead slits are adjacent. This therefore constitutes the fastening bar frame comprising the required structure of the claim.
However, in regards to the limitation which requires a fastening bar containing an insertion slit through which the pair of electrode leads respectively passed and extended out through the pair of adjacent lead slits pass, Kim fails to disclose said structure. Instead, Kim’s structure comprises a fastening bar containing an insertion slit through which a pair of electrode leads respectively passed and extended out through a same adjacent lead slit pass.
Here, it would not be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify the art of Kim in a manner which achieves the claimed invention
Here, in regards to modifying the art of Kim, Kim’s disclosure comprises the fastening bar places against the fastening bar frame such that the slit of the fastening bar is aligned with the slit of the fastening bar frame, shown in their figure 8’s cross section. For the leads to extend through differing slits in the fastening bar frame, but the same slit in the fastening bar, this would require a substantial redesign of the fastening bar, as well as adding increased complexity to the system by having leads that go through the same fastening bar frame slit go to differing fastening bar slits. Where the function of the fastening bar 280 is to conduct and act as a bus bar (Paragraph 0048), there would be no reason to modify the fastening bar and leads in this manner.
Additionally, other prior art either lacks the fastening bar frame, and immediately brings all of the electrode leads together to a fastening bar, or uses a fastening bar similar to the that of Kim, and has respective slits in a conductive fastening bar which electrically connects them without needing to bring them together to a second bar, or makes use of a fastening bar structure which does not incorporate slits.
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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights