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 Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-14.
The examined claims are 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-14, with Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13 being amended, and Claim 14 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
Per the aforementioned amendments to the Claims, the previous rejections of record under 35 USC 112(b) and 112(d) are withdrawn.
Applicant has mainly (1) amended independent Claim 1 to clarify that the claimed connecting one or more battery-side intermediate terminals to respective one or more board-side intermediate terminals occurs after the claimed connecting of the battery-side ground terminal to the board-side ground terminal, (2) amended Claim 3 to include the subject matter of now-cancelled Claims 4 and 6, and (3) newly presented Claim 14 which further limits Claim 1 in substantially the same manner as in now-cancelled Claim 6.
Regarding said (1), Applicant argues that Nagaoka does not teach or suggest the step order of the claimed method (Page 9 of Remarks). Regarding said (2) and (3), Applicant argues that Claim 3 (and its dependents) and Claim 14 are in condition for allowance based on the indication of allowable subject matter outline in the 04/21/26 Non-Final Rejection and based on the aforementioned amendments to the Claims (Pages 9-10 of Remarks).
Regarding said (2) and (3), Applicant arguments are persuasive. Accordingly, and as described below, Claims 3, 5, 7-11, 13 are allowable and Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but otherwise allowable.
Regarding said (1), Applicant’s argument is acknowledged, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagaoka et al. (US 2008/0284375).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagaoka teaches a power supply system (“power supply device”) ([0001], [0044]). As illustrated in Figures 2-10, Nagaoka teaches that the power supply system comprises a plurality of secondary cells (10) each of which includes an electrode terminal (“plurality of secondary battery cells each including an electrode terminal”), a “battery holder” (i.e. two holders (11) in combination) holding the plurality of secondary cells, a cell controller (80, also abbreviated as C/C) (“circuit board”) mounted on a surface of the battery holder, the cell controller including printed wirings on surfaces thereof that form a control circuit that is electrically connected to the plurality of secondary cells and configured to control charge and discharge of the plurality of secondary cells (“control circuit mounted on the circuit board”) ([0006], [0037]-[0039], [0046]-[0049], [0064]-[0069]). As illustrated in Figures 2, 9, 10A-10B, Nagaoka teaches that the battery holder comprises a one or more “battery-side intermediate terminals” electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of secondary cells (i.e. the terminals connected to groupings of secondary cells indicated as “AB1, AB2…, AB12”), and a “battery-side ground terminal” drawn outside from the battery holder (i.e. terminal “TH3” that is connected to ground terminal “GND”) and functioning as a ground of a total output of the plurality of secondary cells, wherein the plurality of secondary cells are electrically connected in at least series to one another (“the plurality of secondary battery cells being electrically connected in series and/or parallel to one another”) ([0071]-[0073], [0082]). As illustrated in Figures 9, 10A-10B, 11, Nagaoka teaches that the cell controller comprises one or more “board-side intermediate terminals” electrically connected to the battery-side intermediate terminals (i.e. IC-1A, IC-1B, etc. and their terminals connected to the groupings of the secondary cells), and a “board-side ground terminal” (i.e. ground terminal “GND”) connected to the battery-side ground terminal ([0071], [0082], [0085], [0090]).
Given that the instantly claimed method steps (i.e. the “connecting” of the battery-side ground terminal to the board-side ground terminal, and the “connecting” of the one or more battery-side intermediate terminals to respective one or more board-side intermediate terminals) occur as a consequence of constructing, in the manner illustrated in Figures 2-11 of Nagaoka, the power supply system of Nagaoka (wherein it is noted that, as previously described, the power supply system of Nagaoka comprises all of the structural components of the instantly claimed power supply device), Nagaoka is interpreted as teaching a method of manufacturing the power supply system (“method of manufacturing a power supply device”) as instantly claimed. Furthermore, it is interpreted that said “connecting” of the one or more battery-side intermediate terminals to respective one or more board-side intermediate terminals occurs after said “connecting” of the battery-side ground terminal to the board-side ground terminal given that said “connecting” of the one or more battery-side intermediate terminals to respective one or more board-side intermediate terminals requires that the circuit board is already present/mounted in the power supply system.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka et al. (US 2008/0284375), and further in view of Emori et al. (JP 2002-170535, using the provided translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 2, Nagaoka teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the battery-side ground terminal is drawn outside from the battery holder and is connected to the board-side ground terminal.
Nagaoka does not explicitly teach that the battery-side ground terminal is drawn outside from the battery holder via a flexible member.
However, Emori teaches a power supply device comprising lithium secondary batteries ([0001]). As illustrated in Figures 1, 3, 7, Emori teaches that the power supply device comprises a connection terminal which is drawn outside of the power supply device via a flat, flexible harness (106) which is operable to handle electrical communication ([0006], [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would draw the battery-side ground terminal of Nagaoka outside from the battery holder via a flat, flexible harness (“flexible member”), as taught by Emori, given not only because such a harness would enhance the flexibility of the connection to the battery-side ground terminal, but also because it would reduce thickness characteristics of the system by using a connection component which is flat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 further limits the method of Claim 1 by requiring, among all other limitations, that the battery-side ground terminal is drawn outside from the battery holder via a flexible member, wherein the battery holder includes a plurality of lead plates, each of the plurality of lead plates electrically connecting a corresponding pair of electrode terminals of adjacent secondary battery cells out of the plurality of secondary battery cells to each other, a lead plate among the plurality of lead plates is a ground lead plate functioning as a ground of a total output of the plurality of secondary battery cells electrically connected in series and/or parallel to one another, and said connecting the battery-side ground terminal to the board-side ground terminal comprises connecting the battery-side ground terminal to the ground lead plate.
Neither Nagaoka, nor Emori, nor Sun, nor Ro (as previously described in this Final Rejection or in the 04/21/26 Non-Final rejection), teach or suggest the instantly claimed structural limitations of Claim 14. In particular, said references neither teach nor suggest that the battery holder includes lead plates as instantly claimed, let alone a lead plate among a plurality of lead plates functioning as the instantly claimed ground lead plate connected in the instantly claimed manner. At best, while Ro discloses a plurality of bus bars (120) in at least Figures 1-2, wherein bus bars function in the manner of lead plates, Ro neither teaches nor suggests that said plurality of bus bars are structured and connected in the manner disclosed in Claim 14.
Claims 3, 5, 7-11, 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 (wherein Claims 5, 7-11, 13 depend from Claim 3) requires, among all other limitations, that the battery-side ground terminal is drawn outside from the battery holder via a flexible member, wherein the battery holder includes a plurality of lead plates, each of the plurality of lead plates electrically connecting a corresponding pair of electrode terminals of adjacent secondary battery cells out of the plurality of secondary battery cells to each other, a lead plate among the plurality of lead plates is a ground lead plate functioning as a ground of a total output of the plurality of secondary battery cells electrically connected in series and/or parallel to one another, and the battery-side ground terminal is connected to the ground lead plate.
Neither Nagaoka, nor Emori, nor Sun, nor Ro (as previously described in this Final Rejection or in the 04/21/26 Non-Final rejection), teach or suggest the instantly claimed structural limitations of Claim 3. In particular, said references neither teach nor suggest that the battery holder includes lead plates as instantly claimed, let alone a lead plate among a plurality of lead plates functioning as the instantly claimed ground lead plate connected to the battery-side ground terminal. At best, while Ro discloses a plurality of bus bars (120) in at least Figures 1-2, wherein bus bars function in the manner of lead plates, Ro neither teaches nor suggests that said plurality of bus bars are structured and connected in the manner disclosed in Claim 3.
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 MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights