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 .
Claims 1-12 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the sensing member comprising a lead and a wire and extends outwards from outer periphery of the pouch-shaped case (claim 2), the pouch shaped case comprising an outer coating layer, a metal layer and an inner adhesive layer where the wire is located between the outer coating layer and the metal layer or between the inner adhesive layer and the metal layer (claim 3) and an insulation layer in interposed between the wire and the metal layer (claim 4), which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). These features of claims 2-4 are essential to prevent the battery cell from short circuiting by protecting the sensing member which is located within he battery case as detailed in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Eom et al. (10,181,623).
Eom et al. (10,181,623) teaches a battery module including a pouched-shaped battery cell having a cell assembly therein (100), a voltage detection structure (200) and a sensing cover (300) which meets the claimed sensing member mounted therein the battery case. Eom et al. (10,181,623) teaches the cell assembly to have a plurality of secondary batteries and having plate shaped electrodes of positive and negative leads configured as a plate shaped and protruding in opposite directions (claimed electrode tabs and electrode leads) which extend outside a sealed portion (pouch exterior) of the cell assembly (Fig. 6) and (col. 5, line 40 – col. 6, line 15). Eom et al. (10,181,623) teaches the sensing member (200) connected to the cell assembly (100) to sense voltage of a secondary battery provided in the cell assembly (col. 6, lines 17-22).
Regarding claim 2, Eom et al. (10,181,623) teaches the sensing member (200) to include a sensing plate (claimed sensing lead) and a wire (220) and mounted it the battery case (Fig. 3 and col. 6 line 23 – col. 8, line 50).
Regarding claim 9, Eom et al. (10,181,623) teaches the sensing lead only contact with a portion of the electrode leads and hence would be smaller in size (col. 7, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 10, Eom et al. (10,181,623) teaches a fuse in the battery pack and connected to the connector (220) of voltage detection structure (200) (claimed sensing member).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. (10,181,623) in combination with Jang et al. (11,545,727).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Eom et al. (10,181,623) are incorporated here.
Eom et al. (10,181,623) fails to teach a busbar plate coupled to the sending lead and the electrode lead by a welding portion.
Jang et al. (11,545,727) teaches a battery module including bus bar frame whereby a plurality of bus bars (240) are fixed to electrode leads (111) by ultrasonic welding (col. 6, lines 41-56). And the electrode leads and sening leads are connected as taught in Eom et al. (10,181,623) hence meeting the welding of the sensor leads as well.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Eom et al. (10,181,623) battery module with a bus bar having been welded to the electrode plates as evidenced by Jang et al. (11,545,727).
Regarding claim 11, Eom et al. (10,181,623) teaches a battery module including a pouched-shaped battery cell having a cell assembly therein (100), a voltage detection structure (200) and a sensing cover (300) which meets the claimed module housing sensing member mounted therein the battery case. Eom et al. (10,181,623) teaches BMS (col. 12, lines 22-32 and (col. 8, lines 20-37), welding the sensing lead/plate and the electrode lead/plate to a busbar
Regarding claim 12, the BMS is configured to measure the voltage of he electrode assembly of each of the battery cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712