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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 claims 1-4, 8-12 in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5 and 7 are withdrawn from consideration
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Okada et al (USPAT 10601014).
Claim 1: Okada teaches a plurality of battery cells (1) connected by busbars (3) that electrically connect electrode terminals of the battery cells wherein the terminals are protruding portions and welded around the protruding portion [Abstract]. The instant claim busbar joined to each electrode terminal [Fig 2] and electrode terminals with protruding sections that extend from the one surface wherein the busbar has a hole that engages the protruding section of the electrode terminal and a coupling section that is welded [Fig 3-6]; features of the instant claim have been mapped to the prior art in Modified Fig 2 and discussed in detail through Col 6 Ln 16-Col 8 Ln 56.
PNG
media_image1.png
687
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9: Okada teaches an upper surface being the surface area facing the same direction as the external face of the one surface. The upper surface of the electrode terminal other than the electrode terminal protruding section is interpreted to be the surface of the protrusion that can be seen in a direction orthogonal to the direction of the external face of the one surface.
Claim 11: Okada teaches the height of the electrode terminal protruding section to be higher than the thickness of the busbar as the terminal protruding portion is away from the upper surface of the busbar [Fig 2].
Claim 12: Okada teaches the height of the electrode terminal protruding section to be higher than the thickness of the busbar as the terminal protruding portion is away from the upper surface of the busbar [Fig 2]. The battery is capable of being utilized by a vehicle that would inspect if the battery has charge or not by its ability to operate or not [Col 1 Ln 23-65].
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(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al (USPAT 10601014) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (USPAT 12046971 English equivalent to WO2020/261495).
Claim 2-3: Okada teaches a simple hole engagement with a circular protrusion but does not teach alternative fitting engagements of the assembly.
Suzuki teaches an electric driving device with a first protruding portion from a surface [Abstract]. The busbar and post are made in a manner such the post has an inclined portion [Col 2 Ln 1-24] and the busbar has an inclined portion (401) [Col 7 Ln 9-41]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the protruding portion and busbar engagement of Okada to have inclined surfaces as taught by Suzuki in order to improve the ease of fitting engagement and to have a force fit engagement securing the region prior to welding in order to improve the weld conditions.
Claim(s) 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al (USPAT 10601014) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamoto et al (WO2014/106890).
Claim 4: Okada teaches a simple hole engagement with a circular protrusion but does not teach alternative fitting engagements of the assembly.
Nakamoto teaches a battery part using a busbar to connect of plurality of battery units [Abstract]. One of the terminals is taught to have a long hole (142) [Fig 4] and a fitting engagement with a busbar having a non-circular shape (142) [Fig 6a-6b]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the protruding portion and busbar engagement of Okada to have a long hole and terminal post as taught by Nakamoto in order to improve the ease of fitting engagement [First Embodiment].
Claim 10: This claim is interpreted as the busbar of Figure 8 to have a hole, as required by claim 1, and a U-shaped portion that is enclosed by a slightly concave outer portion to create the enclosed hole. Should applicant argue the intended claim is to read on embodiment of claim 9, the claim would be rejected under USC 112 for failing to have a hole as the void region created in the bus bar is not enclosed to create said hole.
Okada teaches a circular shaped busbar which has a double “C” shaped feature.
Nakamoto teaches a battery having a non-circular, elongated hole with a “U” shape and enclosure feature thereon. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the protruding portion and busbar engagement of Okada to have a long hole and terminal post as taught by Nakamoto in order to improve the ease of fitting engagement [First Embodiment].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al (USPAT 10601014) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nemoto et al (PGPUB 2019/0189995).
Claim 8: Okada teaches a busbar to be welded to the terminal protrusion, but is silent to teach a clad material.
Nemoto teaches a sealed battery with a terminal and busbar [Fig 6]. The busbar is exemplified to be made of a clad material [0075]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the busbar material of Okada to be a clad material as taught by Nemoto in order to improve the weld conditions and therefor improve stability of the battery [0075].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights