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 .
Foreign Priority Documents
The Korean foreign priority document(s) KR 10-2022-0127983, submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (a)-(d), was/were been received on September 4, 2023, and placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 25, 2023, has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I drawn to a sensing block in the reply filed on April 13, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicants traverse this restriction requirement on the ground that independent claim 11, drawn to a battery module assembly, recites a battery module assembly that includes the sensing block recited in independent claim 1. In particular, independent claim 11 recites the same sensing block limitations as independent claim 1. Accordingly, the battery module assembly of claim 11 requires the particulars of the sensing block claimed in claim 1, rather than merely reciting a broader combination that is patentably distinct from the particulars of the sensing block claimed in claim 1. Thus, the present claims do not satisfy the combination/subcombination distinctness standard of MPEP § 806.05(c), because the combination as claimed expressly requires the particulars of the separately claimed subcombination. To the extent the Office relies on additional elements recited only in dependent claims of Group I, such reliance does not establish distinctness between independent claim 1 and independent claim 11, where claim 11 recites the same sensing block limitations as claim 1.
This is not found persuasive because a sensing block can be used to monitor any electronic device, not just batteries. The configuration of batteries necessitated but claim 11, including battery modules and battery cartridges are not a feature of Group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 are pending and claims 11-18 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6-7 & 9-10 are 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.
In claim 3, line 2, the term “insertion injection method” is of uncertain meaning rendering the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the method is as there are various combinations of steps. Applicant is encouraged to remove the term “method” to overcome the rejection. An appropriate correction is required.
In claim 4, line 4, the term “thermal fusion method” is of uncertain meaning rendering the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the method is as there are various combinations of steps. Applicant is encouraged to remove the term “method” to overcome the rejection. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is reflected based on dependency of claim 4.
In claim 6, line 4, the term “thermal fusion method” is of uncertain meaning rendering the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the method is as there are various combinations of steps. Applicant is encouraged to remove the term “method” to overcome the rejection. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is reflected based on dependency of claim 6.
In claim 9, line 4, the term “thermal fusion method” is of uncertain meaning rendering the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the method is as there are various combinations of steps. Applicant is encouraged to remove the term “method” to overcome the rejection. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is reflected based on dependency of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 would be allowable over the prior art of record, because the prior art is silent to respective high-voltage bus bars installed on opposite side edges of the block body; and an insert bolt electrically connected to a high-voltage bus bar, of the respective high-voltage bus bars, to draw a voltage.
The prior art, such as HAN et al. WO-2022149897-A1, teaches a sensing block configured to sense states of battery cells of a battery module assembly (battery module comprises: a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells stacked together and each including electrode leads; a first sensing block; See the Abstract), the sensing block comprising: a block body having a plurality of slots (slots; Fig. 8) through which electrode leads of the battery cells pass (electrode leads; Fig. 8) ; a plurality of sensing terminals installed between the plurality of slots on a front surface of the block body (sensing terminals between slots; Fig. 8); a circuit board installed on the front surface of the block body (circuit board; Fig. 8); and a connector installed on the circuit board (connector; Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the reference does not teach or suggest high-voltage bus bars installed on opposite side edges of the block body. Specifically, HAN teaches the bus bar and busbar frame may be eliminated to reduce weight and manufacturing costs. See the Description at paragraph 15:
In addition, since it is unnecessary to use the bus bar, the bus bar or the bus bar frame can be removed. In addition, since the conventional bus bar frame 50 and the end plate 40 are replaced with first and second sensing blocks 410 and 420 and an elastic member 700 to be described later, the weight of the battery module 100 is reduced. It is light and has the advantage of lowering the manufacturing cost.
Therefore, the skilled artisan would not modify the sensing block of and adding opposing bus bars. Thus, claim 2 is patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable based on claim 2.
The prior art, such as KIM et al. KR-20170066896-A, teaches a sensing block with opposing bus bars 110 & 131. See Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
714
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the reference does not teach or suggest the sensing block comprising: a block body having a plurality of slots through which electrode leads of the battery cells pass; a plurality of sensing terminals installed between the plurality of slots on a front surface of the block body. Additionally, Han cannot be modified as disclosed hereinabove. If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) See MPEP 2143.01.
Thus, claim 2 is patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable based on claim 2.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by HAN et al. WO-2022149897-A1.
With respect to claim 1, HAN teaches a sensing block configured to sense states of battery cells of a battery module assembly (battery module comprises: a battery cell stack comprising a plurality of battery cells stacked together and each including electrode leads; a first sensing block; See the Abstract), the sensing block comprising: a block body having a plurality of slots (slots; Fig. 8) through which electrode leads of the battery cells pass (electrode leads; Fig. 8) ; a plurality of sensing terminals installed between the plurality of slots on a front surface of the block body (sensing terminals between slots; Fig. 8); a circuit board installed on the front surface of the block body (circuit board; Fig. 8); and a connector installed on the circuit board (connector; Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the instant claim is anticipated by Han.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al. WO-2022149897-A1 in view of IKEDA et al., WO-2005073743-A1.
HAN teaches a sensing block as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
However, HAN does not teach or suggest: a fixing part for fixing a sensing terminal, of the plurality of sensing terminals, is formed on the front surface of the block body; and the fixing part is configured to be compressed by a thermal fusion method after penetrating the sensing terminal (claim 6); an upper hole and a lower hole are formed, respectively, on an upper and a lower end of the sensing terminal; and the fixing part comprises an upper fixing part and a lower fixing part penetrating, respectively, the upper hole and the lower hole (claim 7).
IKEDA teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a fixing part for fixing a sensing terminal (mold positioning pin; See Best Mode, Paragraph 86); and the fixing part is configured to be compressed by a thermal fusion method after penetrating the sensing terminal (Examiners Note: pin material is capable of being compressed; claim 6); an upper hole and a lower hole are formed (Each sensor terminal 311, 312, 313, 314 is formed with an appropriate number of through holes 311 h, 312 h, 313 h, 314 h (see FIGS. 75 and 76); See Best Mode, Paragraph 86; (claim 7).
HAN and IKEDA are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabrication sensors with sensing terminals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the fixing part for fixing a sensing terminal of IKEDA, in the sensing block of HAN in order to secure the sensing blocks to improve accuracy of monitoring. With respect to the fixing part being formed on the front surface of the block body (claim 6); it would have been obvious in the sensing block of HAN in view of IKEDA, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the holes being on an upper and a lower end of the sensing terminal (claim 7); it would have been obvious in the sensing block of HAN in view of IKEDA, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the fixing part comprising an upper fixing part and a lower fixing part penetrating, respectively, the upper hole and the lower hole(claim 7); it would have been obvious in the sensing block of HAN in view of IKEDA, as making pins integral (brackets, staples) of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Lastly, rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al. WO-2022149897-A1 in view of DOMYO et al., WO-2015174090-A1.
HAN teaches a sensing block as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
However, HAN does not teach or suggest: a plurality of soldering holes is formed at an upper portion of the circuit board; and lower ends of the plurality of sensing terminals penetrate the plurality of soldering holes, respectively, and then are soldered and fixed (claim 8); a fixing part for fixing the circuit board is formed at a lower portion of the front surface of the block body; and the fixing part is configured to be compressed by a thermal fusion method after penetrating a fixing hole formed on the circuit board (claim 9); the fixing hole is formed at a position out of a conductive line of the circuit board (claim 10).
DOMYO teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a plurality of soldering holes (the circuit board 42 has a plurality of sensor connection portions 42 b corresponding to the positions of the plurality of rotational position sensors 43. The sensor connecting portion 42b can be provided by a plurality of through holes and lands for receiving the sensor terminal 43a ; Description Of Embodiment; paragraph 43); and lower ends of the plurality of sensing terminals penetrate the plurality of soldering holes, respectively, and then are soldered and fixed (the circuit board 42 has a plurality of sensor connection portions 42 b corresponding to the positions of the plurality of rotational position sensors 43. The sensor connecting portion 42b can be provided by a plurality of through holes and lands for receiving the sensor terminal 43a ; Description Of Embodiment; paragraph 43; claim 8); a fixing part for fixing the circuit board is formed at a lower portion of the front surface of the block body; and the fixing part is configured to be compressed by a thermal fusion method after penetrating a fixing hole formed on the circuit board (The circuit board 42a has an external connection part 42c for connecting the lead wire 45 and the circuit board 42a; Description Of Embodiment; paragraph 43; Examiners Note: external connection material is capable of being compressed by heat; claim 9).
HAN and DOMYO are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabrication sensors with sensing terminals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the plurality of soldering holes of DOMYO, in the circuit board of the sensing block of HAN, to securely attach the sensing terminals. The skilled artisan recognizes soldering as a method to secure attachment. With respect to the plurality of soldering holes bring formed at an upper portion of the circuit board, it would have been obvious in the sensing block of HAN in view of DOMYO, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to the fixing hole bring formed at a position out of a conductive line of the circuit board (claim 10); it would have been obvious in the sensing block of HAN in view of DOMYO, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights