DETAILED ACTION
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/04/26. The applicant has overcome the objection and the 35 USC 102 rejection as set forth in the previous office action. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. However, the present claims are now finally rejected over new grounds of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
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.
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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication KR 10-2015-0050314 (heretofore KR’314).
As to claims 1-4, 11:
KR’314 discloses that it is known in the art to make a modular battery pack (battery module) (0006-0010; 0033-0039; 0080-0093; 0095-0110; see Figures 9-13) comprising stacked battery cells including electrode leads/tabs/connectors projecting/protruding therefrom; a busbar/connector assembly including a first side/surface including slit/openings/holes/orifices for receiving and connecting the electrode leads/tabs/connectors projecting/protruding from the battery cells; a sensor including a sensing element/assembly placed/disposed on the busbar/connector so that a second side/surface of the busbar/connector assembly on the opposite side of the first side/surface is joined/mated with the sensing element/assembly (0006-0010; 0033-0039; 0080-0093; 0095-0110; see Figures 9-13). Figures 9-11, infra, illustrate the battery module including the busbar/connector assembly and the stacked battery cells comprising the electrode leads/tabs/connectors projecting/protruding therefrom
PNG
media_image1.png
660
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
738
356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
726
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5:
KR’314 discloses through-holes (gaps, slits, orifices) formed on a part, portion, region, section, area of the busbar/connector assembly placed on top/partly covering another part, portion, region, section, area of the busbar/connector assembly joined/mated with the sensing element/assembly (0080-0093; 0095-0110; see Figures 9 & 11).
As to claim 6:
In KR’314, the busbar/connector assembly comprises a plurality of mounting/framed parts/portions/areas/zones/sections including a recessed portion/area where the busbar/connector is placed and projecting/protruding elements protruding from the busbar/connector assembly so that the electrode leads/tabs/connectors project/protrude through the busbar/connector slit/openings/holes/orifices (see Figures 9 & 11-13). Figures 9, & 1-13, supra, depicts the mounting/framed parts/portions/areas/zones/sections widens towards the stacked battery cells.
As to claims 9-10:
KR’314 discloses the sensor comprising an upper connecting component (i.e., module connector) so that a connecting wire/cable connects the connecting component and the busbar/connector assembly joined/mated with the sensing element/assembly (0080-0093; 0095-0110; see Figures 9-11 & 13)
KR’314 discloses a battery module according to the foregoing description. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific first region of the first surface partially overlapping.
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrangement, locate or place the specific first region of the first surface to partially overlap at the joining region/point as instantly claimed because it has been held that re-arrangement, reversal or duplication of parts is prima-facie obvious. Succinctly stated, fact that the claimed first region of the first surface is structurally re-arranged, reversed or duplicated to form a similar component having the same functionality is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old feature unless there are new or unexpected results as it is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed first region of the first surface was critical. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70. In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7. In re Gazda 104 USPQ 400. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378. (Refer to MPEP 2144.04 [R-I] Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: VI. Reversal, Duplication, OR Rearrangement of Parts).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the battery module comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claim 7
Claim 7 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. Note that claim 8 is also allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights