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 .
Response to Arguments
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1), Applicant argues that the newly-added limitation of "adjacent two of the positive connection region of the plurality of conductive units being electrically connected to each other by a connecting member, wherein the first buffer section and the connecting member are curved shape" places the claims in condition for allowance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that these features are taught by Fouet et al. (EP 3872891) in view of Wynn et al. (US 2020/0067061) as set forth in detail in the claim rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the phrase “wherein the first buffer section and the connecting member are curved shape” appears to have been intended to read “wherein the first buffer section and the connecting member have a curved shape.” Claims 3-12 and 15-20 are similarly rejected as they require all of the limitations of one of claims 1 or 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claims 1 and 13 recite the phrase “adjacent two of the positive connection region of the plurality of conductive units,” which appears to have been intended to read “adjacent two of the positive connection regions of the plurality of conductive units.” Claims 3-12 and 15-20 are similarly rejected as they require all of the limitations of one of claims 1 or 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amended claim. For examination purposes, it is understood that the claimed “inwardly concave circular arc-shaped structure” refers to the region indicated in the illustration below:
PNG
media_image1.png
291
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouet et al. (EP 3872891) in view of Wynn et al. (US 2020/0067061).
As to Claim 1, Fouet et al. discloses a busbar (see e.g. conductor 22, [0065], Fig. 3, and Illustration 1 below) comprising:
a plurality of conductive units (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 1 below); each of the plurality of conductive units including:
a positive connection region (see e.g. first terminal 222, [0076], Fig. 3, and Illustration 1) the region indicated in Illustration 1 below),
a negative connection region (see e.g. second terminal 224, [0076], Fig. 3, and Illustration 1), and
a first buffer section (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 1 below) arranged between the positive connection region and the negative connection region;
PNG
media_image2.png
355
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 3 of Fouet et al..
the positive connection region being configured to connect a positive electrode of a cell (see e.g. [0076] and Fig. 2, showing 222 connecting to positive pole 48, which reads on the claimed positive electrode), and the negative connection region being configured to connect a negative electrode of another cell (see e.g. [0078] and Fig. 2, showing 224 connecting to negative pole 52, which reads on the claimed negative electrode); and
adjacent two of the positive connection regions of the plurality of conductive units being electrically connected to each other by a connecting member (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 1 above, which electrically connects the positive connection regions of the plurality of conductive units).
The first buffer section and the connecting member of Fouet et al. both have a straight shape, rather than a curved shape.
Wynn et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches an analogous busbar (see e.g. busbar 810, [0074] and Fig. 8) for a battery array see e.g. cells 210, Wynn et al.: [006] and Fig. 8) in which a portion of the busbar is designed to have a curved shape (see e.g. throat 814, Wynn et al.: [0076] and Fig. 8). By designing a portion of the busbar to have this curved shape, Wynn et al. teaches that this design creates a throat area where the cross-sectional area of the busbar has a local minimum (see e.g. Wynn et al.: [0076]). Wynn et al. further teaches that this local minimum acts as a fuse that fails when a large current passes through the busbar (see e.g. Wynn et al.: [0076]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first buffer section and the connecting member of Fouet et al.’s busbar with a curved throat shape similar to that taught by Fig. 8 of Wynn et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification to Fouet et al.’s busbar because Wynn et al. teaches that this curved shape acts as a fuse in the event of a large current in the busbar.
As to claim 8, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive units are staggered (see e.g. Fouet et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 1, showing two columns of conducting units that are staggered in the lateral direction), and consecutive three of the plurality of conductive units are in a V-shaped structure (see e.g. Fouet et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 1, showing three consecutive units arranged in a V-shaped structure).
As to claim 9, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of conductive units are in parallel to each other (see e.g. Fig. 3 and see Illustration 1 above, the conductive units are aligned in the same direction and can reasonably be said to be parallel with each other).
As to claim 10, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 1, wherein a circular arc-shaped notch (see e.g. Fouet et al.: Fig. 4, the arc-shaped notch is indicated in Illustration 2 below) matching the positive electrode of the cell is defined on the negative connection region (see e.g. Fouet et al.: Fig. 4 and Illustration 2, the arc-shaped region is defined on 224 and can reasonably be said to match the positive electrode of the cell).
As to claim 11, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 1, wherein an inwardly concave circular arc-shaped structure (see e.g. throat 814, which reads on an inwardly concave circular arc-shaped structure, Wynn et al.: Fig. 8) based on the positive connection region is arranged on the connecting member (see e.g. Wynn et al.: Fig. 8, the combined teachings of Fouet et al. and Wynn et al. as applied to claim 1 above place Wynn et al.’s inwardly concave circular arc-shaped structure 814 on the connecting member, which can reasonably be said to be based on the positive connection region shown in Illustration 1 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
536
693
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 4 of Fouet et al..
As to claim 12, the busbar taught by Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. meets all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The recitation of the manner in which the busbar is formed does not patentably distinguish the structure of the claimed busbar from that of Fouet et al..
As to claim 13, Fouet et al. discloses a battery module (see e.g. cells 40 and conductor 22, which together can be considered to be a battery module. [0042], [0065], and Figs. 1 and 3) comprising;
a plurality of cells (see e.g. cells 40, [0042] and Fig. 1) and a plurality of busbars (see e.g. conductor 22, [0065], Fig. 3, and Illustration 1); wherein each of the plurality of busbars comprising a plurality of conductive units (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 1); each of the plurality of conductive units including:
a positive connection region (see e.g. first terminal 222, [0076], Fig. 3, and Illustration 1) the region indicated in Illustration 1 below),
a negative connection region (see e.g. second terminal 224, [0076], Fig. 3, and Illustration 1), and
a first buffer section (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 1 below) arranged between the positive connection region and the negative connection region;
the positive connection region being configured to connect a positive electrode of a cell (see e.g. [0076] and Fig. 2, showing 222 connecting to positive pole 48, which reads on the claimed positive electrode), and the negative connection region being configured to connect a negative electrode of another cell (see e.g. [0078] and Fig. 2, showing 224 connecting to negative pole 52, which reads on the claimed negative electrode); and
adjacent two of the positive connection regions of the plurality of conductive units being electrically connected to each other by a connecting member (see e.g. the region indicated in Illustration 1 above, which electrically connects the positive connection regions of the plurality of conductive units).
The first buffer section and the connecting member of Fouet et al. both have a straight shape, rather than a curved shape.
Wynn et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches an analogous busbar (see e.g. busbar 810, [0074] and Fig. 8) for a battery array see e.g. cells 210, Wynn et al.: [006] and Fig. 8) in which a portion of the busbar is designed to have a curved shape (see e.g. throat 814, Wynn et al.: [0076] and Fig. 8). By designing a portion of the busbar to have this curved shape, Wynn et al. teaches that this design creates a throat area where the cross-sectional area of the busbar has a local minimum (see e.g. Wynn et al.: [0076]). Wynn et al. further teaches that this local minimum acts as a fuse that fails when a large current passes through the busbar (see e.g. Wynn et al.: [0076]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first buffer section and the connecting member of Fouet et al.’s busbar with a curved throat shape similar to that taught by Fig. 8 of Wynn et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification to Fouet et al.’s busbar because Wynn et al. teaches that this curved shape acts as a fuse in the event of a large current in the busbar.
As to claim 16, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the battery module according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of conductive units are staggered (see e.g. Fouet et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 1, showing two columns of conducting units that are staggered in the lateral direction), and consecutive three of the plurality of conductive units are in a V-shaped structure (see e.g. Fouet et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 1, showing three consecutive units arranged in a V-shaped structure).
As to claim 17, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the battery module according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of conductive units are in parallel to each other (see e.g. Fig. 3 and see Illustration 1 above, the conductive units are aligned in the same direction and can reasonably be said to be parallel with each other).
As to claim 18, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the battery module according to claim 13, wherein a circular arc-shaped notch (see e.g. Fouet et al.: Fig. 4, the arc-shaped notch is indicated in Illustration 2 above) matching the positive electrode of the cell is defined on the negative connection region (see e.g. Fouet et al.: Fig. 4 and Illustration 2, the arc-shaped region is defined on 224 and can reasonably be said to match the positive electrode of the cell).
As to claim 19, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 13, wherein an inwardly concave circular arc-shaped structure (see e.g. throat 814, which reads on an inwardly concave circular arc-shaped structure, Wynn et al.: Fig. 8) based on the positive connection region is arranged on the connecting member (see e.g. Wynn et al.: Fig. 8, the combined teachings of Fouet et al. and Wynn et al. as applied to claim 1 above place Wynn et al.’s inwardly concave circular arc-shaped structure 814 on the connecting member, which can reasonably be said to be based on the positive connection region shown in Illustration 1 above).
As to claim 20, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches a battery pack (see e.g. battery pack, Fouet et al.: [0004]) comprising a battery module (see e.g. cells 40 and conductor 22, which together can be considered to be a battery module. Fouet et al.: [0042], [0065], and Figs. 1 and 3), which meets all of the limitations of claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouet et al. (EP 3872891) in view of Wynn et al. (US 2020/0067061) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai et al. (US 2018/0277818).
As to claim 3, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 1, but does not teach a busbar wherein at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member is a raised structure.
Nagai et al., also working in the field of busbars for battery systems, teaches a busbar (see e.g. bus bar 20, Nagai et al.: [0024] and Fig. 2) comprising a coupling portion (see e.g. coupling portion 22, Nagai et al.: [0027], Fig. 2) that has a raised structure between two regions of the busbar (see e.g. bus bar 20 has projection 22a that reads on a raised structure, Nagai et al.: [0027] and Fig. 2). Nagai et al. teaches that this raised structure improves the durability and reliability of the connections between the busbar and battery terminals by reacting to torsional displacement (see e.g. Nagai et al.: [0033] and [0007]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member of the busbar taught by Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. with a coupling portion comprising a raised structure as taught by Nagai et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to react to torsional displacement and thereby improve improves the durability and reliability of the connections between the busbar and battery terminals, as taught by Nagai et al..
As to claim 4, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 1, but does not teach a busbar wherein at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member second buffer section is a Z-shaped structure.
Nagai et al., also working in the field of busbars for battery systems, teaches a busbar (see e.g. bus bar 20, Nagai et al.: [0024] and Fig. 2) comprising a coupling portion (see e.g. coupling portion 22, Nagai et al.: [0027], Fig. 2) that comprises a Z-shaped structure (see e.g. Nagai et al.: Fig. 2, showing portion 22 having a shape that reads on a Z-shape). Nagai et al. teaches that this Z-shaped structure improves the durability and reliability of the connections between the busbar and battery terminals by reacting to torsional displacement (see e.g. Nagai et al.: [0033] and [0007]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member of the busbar taught by Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. with a coupling portion comprising a Z-shaped structure as taught by Nagai et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to react to torsional displacement and thereby improve improves the durability and reliability of the connections between the busbar and battery terminals, as taught by Nagai et al..
As to claim 5, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 1, but does not teach a busbar wherein at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member second buffer section is wavy in shape.
Nagai et al., also working in the field of busbars for battery systems, teaches a busbar (see e.g. bus bar 20, Nagai et al.: [0024] and Fig. 2) comprising a coupling portion (see e.g. coupling portion 22, Nagai et al.: [0027], Fig. 2) that comprises a structure that is wavy in shape (see e.g. Nagai et al.: Fig. 2, showing portion 22 having a shape that reads on a wavy shape). Nagai et al. teaches that this wavy-shaped structure improves the durability and reliability of the connections between the busbar and battery terminals by reacting to torsional displacement (see e.g. Nagai et al.: [0033] and [0007]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member of the busbar taught by Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. with a coupling portion that is wavy in shape as taught by Nagai et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to react to torsional displacement and thereby improve improves the durability and reliability of the connections between the busbar and battery terminals, as taught by Nagai et al..
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouet et al. (EP 3872891) in view of Wynn et al. (US 2020/0067061) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagida et al. (US 2019/0222003).
As to claim 6, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 1, but does not teach a busbar wherein at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member second buffer section is a convex slot, and a top wall and a side wall of the convex slot is set at an included angle.
Yanagida et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar (see e.g. connection bus bar 32, Yanagida et al.: [0048] and Fig. 3) in which a portion of the busbar has a region that comprises a convex slot (see e.g. flexible part 32B, [0053]-[0055] and Fig. 3) having a top wall and a side wall set at an included angle (see e.g. Yanagida et al.: Fig. 3, and see Illustration 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
130
370
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Illustration 3: Reproduction with annotation of Fig. 3 of Yanagida et al..
Yanagida et al. further teaches that this raised structure gives the busbar some flexibility and allows the busbar to expand and contract laterally to absorb product tolerances of the associated power storage elements (see e.g. Yanagida et al.: [0055]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the busbar of Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. such that at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member second buffer section is a convex slot, and a top wall and a side wall of the convex slot is set at an included angle. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to give the busbar flexibility and to allow the busbar to expand and contract laterally to absorb product tolerances of the associated power storage elements, as taught by Yanagida et al..
As to claim 7, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 6, wherein the included angle is greater than or equal to 90° (see e.g. Yanagida et al.: Fig. 3 and Illustration 3 above showing the side wall and top wall intersect to form an angle that is greater than 90°).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouet et al. (EP 3872891) in view of Wynn et al. (US 2020/0067061) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yanagida et al. (US 2019/0222003).
As to claim 15, Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. teaches the busbar according to claim 13, but does not teach a busbar wherein at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member second buffer section is a convex slot, and a top wall and a side wall of the convex slot is set at an included angle.
Yanagida et al., also working in the field of busbar design, teaches a busbar (see e.g. connection bus bar 32, Yanagida et al.: [0048] and Fig. 3) in which a portion of the busbar has a region that comprises a convex slot (see e.g. flexible part 32B, [0053]-[0055] and Fig. 3) having a top wall and a side wall set at an included angle (see e.g. Yanagida et al.: Fig. 3, and see Illustration 3 below).
Yanagida et al. further teaches that this raised structure gives the busbar some flexibility and allows the busbar to expand and contract laterally to absorb product tolerances of the associated power storage elements (see e.g. Yanagida et al.: [0055]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the busbar of Fouet et al. in view of Wynn et al. such that at least one of the first buffer section and the connecting member second buffer section is a convex slot, and a top wall and a side wall of the convex slot is set at an included angle. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to give the busbar flexibility and to allow the busbar to expand and contract laterally to absorb product tolerances of the associated power storage elements, as taught by Yanagida et al..
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights