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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim set filed 9/22/22 includes a preliminary amendment that:
cancels claim 2
incorporates claim 2 into claim 1
Amends claim 3 to an independent claim
Amends the dependency of claim 4 from “any one of claims 1 through 3” to “claim 1”.
This claim set filed September 22, 2022 will be considered. Another claim set identical to the original claims as filed was filed March 29, 2024. That claim set appears to be an unintentional duplicate.
The tern “probe trace” does not appear to be a term or art. In the specification at
paragraph [0025]:
The probe trace 18 is an irregularity formed as the probe of an apparatus for charging/discharging the battery 6 or conducting an inspection is pressed against the output terminal 12. The probe trace 18 is not limited to any particular shape and may be conical-shaped, pyramidal-shaped, ball-shaped, flat-shaped, crown-shaped, etc.
,
The probe of an apparatus for charging/discharging the battery 6 or conducting an inspection is pressed against the output terminal 12 in [0025] is not part of the battery module. It is an external piece. Therefore, under BRI, the “probe race” can be reasonably considered a conductive piece or irregularity between the bus bar and terminal.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DANNO et al. JP-2019175618-A (translation supplied on IDS) in view of KATO et al. JP-2019153555-A.
With respect to claim 1, DANNO teaches a battery module (10; Fig. 1), comprising: a battery stack in which a plurality of batteries (10; Fig. 1) each having an output terminal are arranged (positive terminal 120 and negative terminal 130; Abstract; Fig. 2); and a bus bar (200; [0027] of translation supplied on IDS; Fig. 12) bonded to the output terminal of each battery and electrically connecting the plurality of batteries (Fig. 1), wherein the output terminal has a probe trace on a surface that faces the bus bar (the irregularities on the terminal at 21a on the terminal 120 is the probe trace; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, battery module (10; Fig. 1), comprising: a battery stack in which a plurality of batteries (10; Fig. 1) each having an output terminal are arranged (positive terminal 120 and negative terminal 130; Abstract; Fig. 2); and a bus bar (200; [0027] of translation supplied on IDS; Fig. 12) bonded to the output terminal of each battery and electrically connecting the plurality of batteries (Fig. 1), wherein the output terminal has a probe trace on a surface that faces the bus bar (the irregularities on the terminal at 21a on the terminal 120 is the probe trace; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 4, the probe trace has a convex part that projects with respect to a bonding surface of the output terminal to which the bus bar is bonded toward the bus bar (the irregularities on the terminal at 21a on the terminal 120 is the probe trace; Fig. 2). With respect to claim 5,
a battery module (10; Fig. 1), comprising: a battery stack in which a plurality of batteries (10; Fig. 1) each having an output terminal are arranged (positive terminal 120 and negative terminal 130; Abstract; Fig. 2); and a bus bar (200; [0027] of translation supplied on IDS; Fig. 12) bonded to the output terminal of each battery and electrically connecting the plurality of batteries (Fig. 1), wherein the output terminal has a bonding surface bonded to the bus bar(the irregularities on the terminal at 21a on the terminal 120; Fig. 2), a concave part concave with respect to the bonding surface in a direction away from the bus bar(the irregularities on the terminal at 21a on the terminal 120; Fig. 2).
DANNO does not tech or suggest: the bus bar having a concave part that faces the probe trace and overlaps the entirety of the probe trace (claim 1); the bus bar includes a plurality of concave parts that face the probe trace and overlap respectively different parts of the probe trace (claim 3); a height of the convex part of the terminal is not less than 50 m and not more than 200 m (claim 4); and a probe trace accommodated in the concave part of the terminal (claim 5).
However, KATO teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: the bus bar (30; Fig. 3B) having a concave part that faces the probe trace and overlaps the entirety of the probe trace (30; concave part Fig. 3B; claim 1); the bus bar includes a plurality of concave parts that overlap respectively different parts of the probe trace (30; several concave parts that would contact different parts of the surface; Fig. 3B; claim 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
436
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DANNO and KATO are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating battery packs with terminal and bus bars.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the bus bar having a concave part of KATO, in the bus bar of DANNO, in order to increase electrical contact efficiency. Regarding the concave parts facing the probe trace and overlaps the entirety of the probe trace; it would have been obvious in the bus bar of DANNO in view of KATO, in order to increase electrical contact efficiency. Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Change in size of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to the concave parts facing the probe trace and (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the bus bar of DANNO in view of KATO, in order to increase electrical contact efficiency. Also, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Change in shape of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Change in size of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to a height of the convex part of the terminal being not less than 50 m and not more than 200 m (claim 4); it would have been obvious in the terminal of DANNO in view of KATO, as change in size of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the probe trace being accommodated in the concave part of the terminal (claim 5); it would have been obvious in the terminal of DANNO in view of KATO, to improve charge, discharge and testing. Duplication of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. OOKURA et al. CN-102770983-A teaches a busbar bonded to a conductive plate and terminal. See Fig. 18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Monique Wills whose telephone number is (571) 272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights