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 filed January 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the cited teachings of Lim are directed to tabs rather than leads. However, electrode tabs are, by definition, leads.
"A battery tab is a conductive connector that links battery electrodes to external circuits." (https://www.ufinebattery.com/blog/battery-tab-types-manufacturing-processes-and-applications)
"In electronics, a lead or pin is an electrical connector consisting of a length of wire or a metal pad (surface-mount technology) that is designed to connect two locations electrically." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_(electronics))
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the rejection improperly relies on speculation and ignores the possibility of additional spaces or structures in the battery of Lee. However, Fig. 2 of Lee very clearly shows the relationship of the cells to the housing. There is no space or additional structure between the cells and the top and bottom case, which is fitted exactly to the busbar housing.
The rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0209321 A1) in view of Lim et al. (US 2014/0349181 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).
Lee does not teach any particular tab width. Lim is directed to an electrode assembly and secondary battery (Lim Abstract). 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 in 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 2, the sensing unit wraps around the upper edge of the housing (Lee Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee does not teach that the sensing unit is electrically connected to the busbar at the second surface of the housing. Modified 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 5, modified 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 in 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).
Regarding claim 6, modified 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.
Regarding claim 10, 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).
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 in 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).
Regarding claim 11, the sensing unit wraps around the upper edge of the housing (Lee Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee does not teach that the sensing unit is electrically connected to the busbar at the second surface of the housing. Modified 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 13, modified 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 16, 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) 7, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lim as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2016/0315356 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified 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).
Regarding claim 14, modified 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 15, the connector of modified Lee is elongated in the stacking direction (Moon Fig. 3).
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 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
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights