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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/23/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 01/27/2026
All the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Na et al (PG pub 20210014976).
Regarding claim 1, Na et al teaches a battery protection circuit comprising: a first circuit board 110, a second circuit board 112, and a tab connecting portion 114
the first circuit board 110 comprises a first substrate 102 and electronic components 104 [fig 1 2];
the first substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other [fig 1-2];
wherein the electronic components 104 are disposed on the first surface;
the second circuit board (112,140) comprises a second substrate; the second substrate comprises a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to each other [fig 2]; and the third surface is connected with the second surface, and the tab connecting portion 114 is disposed on the fourth surface [ para 59 looking in the side direction].
Na et al teaches the first substrate 110 is a rigid printed board and the second substrate is a flex printed board (the second substrate include FBCB 140) [fig 2 para 69 75].
Regarding claim 5, Na et al teaches an insulating layer 122 wherein the insulation layer covers the electronic components on the first surface [fig 5 para 66]
Regarding claim 6, Na et al teaches the electronic components are electronic components with individual packages [fig 2 para 52]
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, 5-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al (PG pub 20210014976) and in view of Cn21128408, hereinafter as’408.
Regarding claim 1, Na et al teaches a battery protection circuit comprising: a first circuit board 110, a second circuit board 112, and a tab connecting portion 114
the first circuit board 110 comprises a first substrate 102 and electronic components 104 [fig 1 2];
the first substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other [fig 1-2];
wherein the electronic components 104 are disposed on the first surface;
the second circuit board (112,140) comprises a second substrate; the second substrate comprises a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to each other [fig 2]; and the third surface is connected with the second surface, and the tab connecting portion 114 is connected the fourth surface [ para 59].
the first substrate 110 is a rigid printed board and the second substrate is a flex printed board (the second substrate include FBCB 140) [fig 2 para 69 75].
Na et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but Na et al does not teach the tab connecting portion being disposed on fourth surface.
‘408 teaches a battery protection plate comprising first circuit board 400, second circuit board 12 where the tab connecting portion 15 being disposed on the fourth surface of the circuit board [fig 1A-C]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the tab connecting portion of Na et al to be on the fourth surface of the second circuit board as taught by ‘408 since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Regarding claim 5, modified Na et al teaches an insulating layer 122 wherein the insulation layer covers the electronic components on the first surface [fig 5 para 66]
Regarding claim 6, modified Na et al teaches the electronic components are electronic components with individual packages [fig 2 para 52] (the component is on itself as a whole)
Regarding claim 7. modified Na et al teaches the electronic components are electronic components without individual packages [fig 2 para 56] (the component is connected to the lead frame 112].
Regarding claim 8, modified Na et al teaches a first circuit board as set forth above where the first circuit board is disposed on the second circuit board , but modified Na et al does not teach a plurality of first circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the first circuit board as taught by modified Na et al to be in plurality first circuit board being disposed on the second circuit board since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a devices involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8
Regarding claim 9, modified Na et al teaches the claimed limitation, as set forth above, but modified Na et al does not teach the plurality of bonding pad between second and third surface.
‘408 teaches there being bonding pads 13, 121 between the first and second circuit board 11 and 12 [fig 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the boding pads of ‘408 between second and third surface such that first circuit board and second circuit board are connected as taught by modified Na et al for improving boding between two circuit board. The recitation “by welding…bonding pads” is the presence of process limitation on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA, 1965).
Regarding claim 10, modified Na et al teaches each set of bonding pads being disposed in a length direction of the second surface, and plurality of sets of bonding pads are disposed in width direction of the second surface [fig 2. ‘408].
Regarding claim 11, modified Na et al teaches two connectors 140 disposed at two end of the second substate [fig 8]
Regarding claim 12, modified Na teaches the protection board being connected to the battery cell [abstract]
Regarding claim 14, modified Na et al teaches the batteries being used for electronic device [para 3].
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al (PG pub 20210014976) and Cn21128408, and further in view of EP 3309893, hereinafter as ‘893.
Regarding claim 3, modified Na et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Na et al does not teach the rigid printed board being made of phelonic paper laminate.
‘893 teaches a double layer circuit board being made of paper phenolic laminate [description section]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the material of rigid circuit board of modified Na et al to be made of paper phenolic laminate as taught by ‘893 since Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al (PG pub 20210014976) and Cn21128408, and further in view of Johnson et al (PG pub 20070264564).
Regarding claim 4, modified Na et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Na et al does not teach the flex printed board being made of polyimide.
Johnson et al teaches a flexible circuit board being made of polyimide [claim 40]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the material of flex circuit board of modified Na et al to be made of polyimide as taught by Johnson et al since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al (PG pub 20210014976) and Cn21128408, and Cn21128408 and further in view of CN212517274, hereinafter as ‘274.
Regarding claim 13, modified Na et al teaches at least one tab connecting portion being used for connecting to the battery [para 74]. However, modified Na et al does not explicitly teach three tab connecting portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the tab connecting portion as taught by modified Na et al to be included three tab connecting portions since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Modified Na et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified Na et al does not teach cell including first, second and third tab as claimed.
‘274 teaches a battery comprising plurality of tabs with positive and negative polarities (description section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have three tabs connecting portions of modified Na et al to be connected to 3 tabs of ‘274 for reducing the temperature rise of the protection plate, improve the performance and service life of the battery [description section].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
the FPCB 140 is not disposed in the claimed positional relationship relative
to the rigid printed circuit board and Na's FPCB 140 cannot be mapped to the claimed "second substrate," which is now explicitly required to be a flex printed circuit board having third and fourth surfaces positioned in a specific relationship relative to the rigid printed circuit board.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The second circuit board 112 comprises a second substrate; the second substrate comprises a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to each other [fig 2]; and the third surface is connected with the second surface, and the tab connecting portion 114 is disposed on the fourth surface. Also, the second circuit board including the FPCB 140 which is flexible and FPCB 140 is a part of second circuit board 112. Moreover, even the encapsulant 130 is formed before the FPCB 140, the final product is the second circuit board including FPCB 140. Thus, the second circuit board is flexible as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights