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 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)(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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0209321 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery module (battery module 100) comprising stacked pouch battery cells (battery cells 10), a busbar (busbar 95) coupled to the leads of the cells, a housing (cover 91 of busbar assembly 90a) configured to fix the position of the busbar, and a sensing unit (sensing device 80) attached to the inner and outer faces of the housing (Lee Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, the sensing unit wraps around the upper edge of the housing (Lee Fig. 3).
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) 3, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Lee does not teach that the sensing unit is electrically connected to the busbar at the second surface of the housing. Lee teaches that the sensing unit is electrically connected to circuit board 98 on the second surface of the housing (Lee [0075] and Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to power the circuit using the battery, which would require a connection to the busbar.
Regarding claim 6, Lee does not teach that the sensing unit is a FPCB. Lee teaches that the sensing unit may be a FPCB (Lee [0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a FPCB, since that is the only option provided by Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Lee does not disclose an electronic device using the battery module as an energy source. Lee teaches that the battery is intended for use in an electronic device (Lee [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the battery module as a power source for an electronic device, since Lee teaches that that is its intended purpose.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2014/0349181 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee does not teach any particular tab width. Lim teaches that tab leads on batteries with oppositely arranged positive and negative leads should be as wide as possible, particularly 10-80% of the width of the electrodes, to minimize resistance (Lim [0015] and [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a tab width in this range in order to minimize resistance and to keep housing width as close as possible to electrode width in order to maximize space utilization. This will result it tabs approximately 10-80% of the width of the housing, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Lee does not teach any particular tab width. Lim teaches that tab leads on batteries with oppositely arranged positive and negative leads should be as wide as possible, particularly 10-80% of the width of the electrodes, to minimize resistance (Lim [0015] and [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a tab width in this range in order to minimize resistance and to keep pouch width as close as possible to electrode width in order to maximize space utilization. This will result it tabs approximately 10-80% of the width of the pouch, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2016/0315356 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee does not teach a terminal connector coupled to the sensing unit. However, terminal connectors for battery circuits are a well-known means of retrieving data from associated sensors. See, for example, Moon Figs. 1-3 and [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use any conventional connection means, including the connector of Moon, to retrieve data from the sensors of Lee.
Regarding claim 8, the connector of modified Lee is elongated in the stacking direction (Moon Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722