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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0151921 to Yun, in view of US 2021/0028514 to Park.
Regarding claim 9, Yun teaches a method for manufacturing a battery module assembly, the method comprising:
unit module preparation operation of preparing a unit module 100 that comprises a plurality of battery cells 110 and a plurality of cartridge assemblies 120 for fixing the plurality of battery cells (Figs. 1 and 2; [0043-48]);
sensing assembly mounting operation of mounting a sensing assembly or sensing unit 400 to lower ends of the plurality of cartridge assemblies (Fig. 1; [0057]);
first connector fixing operation of temporarily fixing, to vertical plate 220 which is considered one side of the plurality of cartridge assemblies, a connector or sensing connector 430, which is provided in the sensing assembly (Figs. 1-5; [0057]; [0061-67]);
welding operation of welding electrode tabs 111 of the battery cells 110 to bus bars of lower housing 200 and connecting the electrode tabs to the sensing assembly or sensing unit 400 (Figs. 1-5; [0057]; [0063]; [0088]);
front cover placement operation of placing a front cover or vertical plate cover 230 to the front of the unit module; and
second connector fixing operation of fixing the connector 430 to the front cover or vertical plate cover 230 (Fig. 2; [0054]; [0063]).
Yun does not expressly teach that the sensing assembly or sensing unit 400 is mounted to upper ends of the plurality of cartridge assemblies.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention when viewing the prior art battery module assembly up-side-down.
Finally, Yun does not expressly teach welding the unit module and the sensing assembly to each other.
Park also relates to a method of manufacturing a battery module assembly 100 comprising a plurality of battery cells 121 to 124 and a plurality of cartridges 110, 130, 140, 150, and 160 (Figs. 2-5; [0037]; [0038]), the method comprising welding bus bar 401B of each of cartridges B to voltage sensing terminal 405A of voltage sensing assembly 400 ([0171]; [0197]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used welding to connect the unit module and the sensing assembly to each other in the method of Yun, motivated by the fact that Park demonstrates that welding is known technique to connect the bus bar or electrode tabs of the battery module to the sensing assembly to establish electrical connections that enable the sensing operation. The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results applying a known technique to a known method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed. Claims 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior arts do not teach, particularly, that an upper sensing assembly connection hole is formed in an upper region of each of the plurality of cartridge assemblies, wherein a first protrusion region of the connector is insertable or inserted into the sensing assembly connection hole as required by claims 1 and 10, respectively. There is no apparent reason or motivation to modify the prior art assembly as claimed. As a result, these claims are indicated allowable or containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725