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 of Species A in the reply filed on 9/8/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first collecting plates and the second collecting plates" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the first collecting plates and the second collecting plates” are being interpreted as “first collecting plates and second collecting plates”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 12-13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kosugi et al. (US 2010/0124693).
Regarding claim 1, Kosugi et al. discloses in Figs 1-10, a battery pack ([0022]), comprising at least two cells (refs 10) and one circuit board (ref 14), wherein each of the two cells (refs 10) comprises tabs (refs 21, 22), and the battery pack ([0022]) further comprises: a first adapter strip (one of ref 18) connected to the tabs (refs 21, 22) of two adjacent cells ([0030]) by welding ([0031]-[0032]); and a second adapter strip (refs 36, [0037]) welded ([0031]-[0032]) to the circuit board (ref 14) and connected to the first adapter strip (one of ref 18) by welding ([0031]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the circuit board (ref 14) is provided with a first via hole (ref 46); and a contact interface ([0035], Fig 2) between the first adapter strip (one of ref 18) and the second adapter strip (refs 36, [0037]) is disposed in ([0035], Fig 2) the first via hole (ref 46, [0035], Fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first adapter strip (one of ref 18) comprises a first fixing portion (ref 18a), a first bend portion (part of ref 18 that bends upward from ref 18a to top of ref 18) and a first connecting portion (ref 18b) connected in tandem (Fig 3); the first fixing portion (ref 18a) is welded ([0031]-[0032]) to the tabs (refs 21, 22) of the two adjacent cells (refs 10), the first connecting portion (ref 18b) is configured to be welded ([0031]-[0032], [0037], Fig 3) to the second adapter strip (ref 36, [0037]), and the first connecting portion (ref 18a) is disposed in (Figs 2, 3) the first via hole (ref 46).
Regarding claim 4, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first bend portion (ref 18b) is at least partly disposed (Figs 2, 3) in the first via hole (ref 46).
Regarding claim 9, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a positive tab (ref 21) and a negative tab (ref 22) are disposed at one side (Figs 4-5) of the cell (ref 10), and the first adapter strip (one of ref 18) is connected to positive tabs (ref 21) and negative tabs (ref 22) of the two adjacent cells (refs 10, [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the circuit board (ref 14) comprises a first surface (bottom ref 14) and a second surface (top ref 14) opposite to the first surface (Fig 3), the first surface (bottom ref 14) faces (Fig 3) the cell (ref 10), the circuit board (ref 14) is provided with a first via hole (refs 60, Figs 7-8), and a contact interface (Figs 8, 10, where refs 18 and 36 connect) between the first adapter strip (one of ref 18) and the second adapter strip (ref 36, [0037]) is disposed outside (Fig 10, connection is under / outside ref 14) the first via hole (refs 60).
Regarding claim 13, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the second adapter strip (ref 36, [0037]) is disposed on (Figs 8, 10) the first surface (bottom ref 14).
Regarding claim 15, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the circuit board (ref 14) is a circuit board provided with a battery management system (refs 44, 47, [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses first current collecting plates (collecting plates inherent in disclosure at [0022]) and second current collecting plates (collecting plates inherent in disclosure at [0022]) are configured to implement electrical connection between the tabs (refs 21, 22) of each cell (refs 10) and the circuit board (ref 14), the circuit board (ref 14) collect the information ([0034]) of the tabs (refs 21, 22).
Regarding claim 19, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first adapter strip (one of ref 18) and the second adapter strip (ref 36, [0037]) are laser-welded ([0031]-[0032]).
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 5-7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi et al. (US 2010/0124693) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5-6, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the second adapter strip (ref 36, [0037]) comprises a second fixing portion (top ref 36), a middle portion (Fig 3) and a second connecting portion (bottom ref 36) connected in tandem (Fig 3); the second fixing portion (top ref 36) is welded ([0031]-[0032], [0037]) to the circuit board (ref 14), the second connecting portion (bottom ref 36) is configured to be welded ([0031]-[0032], [0037], Fig 3) to the first adapter strip (one of ref 18), and the second connecting portion (bottom ref 36) is disposed in (Fig 2, 3) the first via hole (ref 46), the middle portion (Fig 3) is at least partly disposed (Fig 3) in the first via hole (ref 46).
Kosugi et al. does not explicitly disclose the middle portion is a second bend portion. It is well known in the art that the second adapter strip can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including a bent shape (as evidenced by Kosugi et al., see shape of the first adapter strip, ref 18b, which is bent). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify second adapter strip (ref 36) of Kosugi et al. to include a variety of shapes, including a bend shape, as taught by Kosugi’s first adapter strip’s bent structure. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to optimize the structural integrity of the electrical connections within the battery structure simplifying it and enhancing overall safety ([0008]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the circuit board (ref 14) comprises a first surface (bottom ref 14) and a second surface (top ref 14) opposite to the first surface (Figs 3, 4), the first surface (bottom ref 14) faces (Figs 3, 4) the cell (ref 10), and the second fixing portion (top ref 36) is disposed on (Fig 3) the second surface (top ref 14).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the circuit board (ref 14) is disposed between (Figs 3, 4) the tabs (refs 21, 22) and the second fixing portion (top ref 36).
Regarding claim 14, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the second adapter strip (ref 36, [0037]) is disposed on the second surface (top end of ref 36 is at top of ref 14, Fig 10); the first adapter strip (one of ref 18) comprises a first fixing portion (ref 18a), a first bend portion (ref 18b) and a first connecting portion (part of ref 18 that bends upward from ref 18a to top of ref 18) connected in tandem (Fig 3); the first fixing portion is welded ([0031]-[0032], [0037]) to the tabs (refs 21, 22) of the two adjacent cells (refs 10), the first connecting portion (ref 18a) is configured to be welded ([0031]-[0032], [0037]) to the second adapter strip (ref 36, [0037]).
Kosugi et al. does not explicitly disclose the first bend portion (ref 18b) is at least partly disposed in the first via hole. The first bend portion (ref 18b) is instead disposed under (Fig 10) the first via hole (ref 60). The difference between the structure of Kosugi et al. and that of the instant claim thus differs merely by the dimensions / size of the first bend portion. While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific dimensions / size of the first bend portion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the dimensions of the bend of the first bend portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art to optimize the structural integrity of the electrical connections within the battery structure simplifying it and enhancing overall safety ([0008]) and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the size of the bend of the first bend portion.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi et al. (US 2010/0124693) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huynh et al. (US 2006/0091849).
Regarding claim 17, Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the battery pack ([0022]) comprises a shell (ref 16), the shell (ref 16) comprises a housing structure (ref 12) and an outer cover (ref 28) disposed on one side ([0024]) of the housing structure (ref 12), the cell (ref 10) is placed in the housing structure (ref 12).
Kosugi et al. does not explicitly disclose the outer cover is located on a side of the circuit board facing away from the cell.
Huynh et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery module (Abstract) including a plurality of battery cells (refs 102) disposed within a housing (ref 100) and having a circuit board (ref 101) disposed (Fig 1) of the housing (ref 100) and having a cap (ref 108) disposed over an outer surface (Fig 1) of the circuit board (ref 101). This configuration protects the circuit board from damage ([0016]).
Kosugi et al. and Huynh et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the outer cover of Huynh et al. into the structure of Kosugi et al. to protect the circuit board from damage.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kosugi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the battery pack ([0022]) comprises a plurality of positioning pins (refs 34, 60) disposed on (Fig 7) the housing structure (ref 12) and a plurality of positioning holes (Fig 7, holes into which refs 60 re inserted) disposed on the circuit board (ref 14), the plurality of positioning pins (refs 34, 60) are inserted into (Fig 7, [0037]) the plurality of positioning holes (Fig 7, holes into which refs 60 are inserted).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seo (US 2006/0127756) discloses in Figs 1-9, a battery module ([0037]) including a circuit board (ref 580) comprising holes / openings (refs 613) to fit with terminals of the battery module ([0068]).
Kim (US 2011/0159323) discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery module (Abstract) including a circuit board (ref 110) including holes (refs 111b3) for connecting to battery terminals ([0046]-[0047]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725