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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1 and 11 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claims 1 and 11.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 11 are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because Applicant amended claims 1 and 11.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US 2020/0020918 A1), hereinafter “Ichikawa,” in view of Yanagida (US 2020/0106075 A1) is maintained as set forth below. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of Yanagida.
Regarding claim 1, Ichikawa discloses a wiring module comprising:
a plurality of busbar units (¶ [0051], Fig.3, ref. no. 25);
wherein each of the busbar units includes:
a busbar connected to the electrode terminals, in this case each bus bar is provided with two electrode holes through which the positive and negative electrodes pass (¶ [0057], Figs. 2 & 3, ref. nos. 253, 4 & 5);
a circuit board, in this case the circuit body (¶ [0051], Figs. 3 & 4, ref. no. 21); and
a fastener that fixes the circuit board to the busbar, in this case the connection portion (¶ [0056], Fig. 4, ref. no. 24);
a conductive path routed on the circuit board, in this case the wiring patterns (¶ [0075], Figs. 14A & 14B, ref. no. 204b), that includes:
a connection land electrically connected to the busbar, in this case the tail end portion (¶ [0084], Fig. 15, ref. no. 26); and
a chip fuse (¶ [0084], Fig. 3, ref. no. 50) provided between the connection land and the wire land where at least a part of the chip fuse is arranged at a position overlapping the busbar in plan view, in this case the chip fuse is positioned in between the connection portion and the bus bar in a direction perpendicular to the length direction (see Fig. 9B, ref. nos. 24, 50, & 25).
Ichikawa does not disclose the wire and wire land. However, Yanagida teaches wires connected to the busbar units at a wire land, in this case the detection wires (¶ [0039], Figs. 1 & 6-10, ref. no. 50) attach to the wire connection portion (¶ [0048], Figs. 3-7, ref. no. 28). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a wire and connection configuration would have enabled detection of the state of the batteries connected to the wiring module (see ¶ [0023]), thereby facilitating improved power storage device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the wire and wire land in order to have facilitated improved power storage device operation.
Regarding claim 4, Ichikawa further discloses that:
the connection between the chip fuse and the conductive path is sealed by a sealing part made of a curable insulating resin, in this case the potting member (¶ [0093], Fig. 13B, ref. no. 28); and
the circuit board has a resin retaining hole, in this case the curving restricting area (¶ [0089]-[0093], Figs. 10-12, ref. no. R).
The limitation “for preventing the curable insulating resin that has not yet been cured and is liquid from spreading over the circuit board” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, Ichikawa and Yanagida teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations and the required connections between these components necessary to perform the functional limitations. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Ichikawa does not disclose the wiring module. Yanagida further teaches that the busbar includes a crimping part that fixes the corresponding wire, in this case the wire connection portions include barrel pieces that are crimped around the detection wires (¶ [0048], Figs. 2-7, ref. no. 28A). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a wire and connection configuration would have enabled detection of the state of the batteries connected to the wiring module (see ¶ [0023]), thereby facilitating improved power storage device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the wire and wire land in order to have facilitated improved power storage device operation.
Regarding claim 8, Ichikawa further discloses that the circuit board is flexible (¶ [0009] & [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Ichikawa further discloses a vehicle, in this case an electric car (¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 11, Ichikawa discloses a busbar unit comprising:
a busbar connected to the electrode terminals, in this case each bus bar is provided with two electrode holes through which the positive and negative electrodes pass (¶ [0057], Figs. 2 & 3, ref. nos. 253, 4 & 5);
a circuit board, in this case the circuit body (¶ [0051], Figs. 3 & 4, ref. no. 21); and
a fastener that fixes the circuit board to the busbar, in this case the connection portion (¶ [0056], Fig. 4, ref. no. 24);
a conductive path routed on the circuit board, in this case the wiring patterns (¶ [0075], Figs. 14A & 14B, ref. no. 204b), that includes:
a connection land electrically connected to the busbar, in this case the tail end portion (¶ [0084], Fig. 15, ref. no. 26); and
a chip fuse (¶ [0084], Fig. 3, ref. no. 50) provided between the connection land and the wire land where at least a part of the chip fuse is arranged at a position overlapping the busbar in plan view, in this case the chip fuse is positioned in between the connection portion and the bus bar in a direction perpendicular to the length direction (see Fig. 9B, ref. nos. 24, 50, & 25).
Ichikawa does not disclose the wire and wire land. However, Yanagida teaches wires connected to the busbar units at a wire land, in this case the detection wires (¶ [0039], Figs. 1 & 6-10, ref. no. 50) attach to the wire connection portion (¶ [0048], Figs. 3-7, ref. no. 28). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a wire and connection configuration would have enabled detection of the state of the batteries connected to the wiring module (see ¶ [0023]), thereby facilitating improved power storage device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the wire and wire land in order to have facilitated improved power storage device operation.
Regarding claim 12, Ichikawa and Yanagida do not specify that the connection land, wire land, corresponding wire, and chip are disposed on the same surface of the circuit board. However, rearranging or shifting the positions of components are an obvious matter of design choice. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood how and where to position and connect the components in order to have ensured device functionality while also gaining the benefits of the inclusion of each component. One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that the positioning of the components relative to the circuit board could take on a variety of configurations while still achieving this aim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the components on the same surface of the circuit board as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Ichikawa and Yanagida do not specify that the connection land, wire land, corresponding wire, and chip are disposed on the same surface of the circuit board. However, rearranging or shifting the positions of components are an obvious matter of design choice. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 VI. C. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood how and where to position and connect the components in order to have ensured device functionality while also gaining the benefits of the inclusion of each component. One having ordinary skill in the art would have further understood that the positioning of the components relative to the circuit board could take on a variety of configurations while still achieving this aim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have placed the components on the same surface of the circuit board as an obvious matter of design choice.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Yanagida as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Nishiwaki et al. (US 2023/0107255 A1), hereinafter “Nishiwaki,” and Nakatani et al. (US 2022/0029214 A1), hereinafter “Nakatani” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 2, Ichikawa does not teach that the fastener is a metal rivet placed in respective fixation holes. However, Nishiwaki teaches:
a first fixation hole (¶ [0036], Fig. 6, ref. no. 62);
a second fixation hole in the circuit board (¶ [0031], Fig. 6, ref. nos. 41 & 4);
a rivet, in this case the screw (¶ [0025] & [0053]; Fig. 6 ref. no. 7);
where the rivet includes a shaft portion inserted into the first and second fixation holes (¶ [0031] & [0033]), Fig. 6, ref. nos. 72, 62, & 41) and a head portion formed at the end of the shaft portion that has a diameter greater than that of the first and second fixation holes (¶ [0035], Fig. 6, ref. no. 71); and
the circuit board has an insulation hole for increasing a creepage distance between the rivet and the conductive path, in this case the holding hole (¶ [0051], Fig. 6, ref. no. 37).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a fastener would have securely fastened the circuit board to the bus bar without damaging adjacent components (see ¶ [0006]-[0008]), thereby facilitating improved device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the rivet and through holes in order to have securely fastened the components and facilitated improved device operation.
Nishikawa does not specify that the rivet is metal. However, Nakatani teaches securing a circuit board with a metal screw (¶ [0079], Fig. 6, ref. nos. 44 & 58). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Yanagida as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Gogmos et al. (US 2022/0346194 A1), hereinafter “Gogmos,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 3, Ichikawa does not disclose the drainage hole. However, Gogmos teaches a circuit board comprising a drainage hole, in this case a water drainage opening (¶ [0012]-[0017], [0066], & [0071]), Fig. 3, ref. no. 82). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a drainage hole would have prevented short circuiting (¶ [0012]), thereby facilitating improved device operation and safety. Therefore it would have been obvious to have provided a drainage hole in the circuit board in order to have facilitated improved device operation and safety.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Yanagida as applied to claim 5, above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2023/0027686 A1), hereinafter “Xu” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 6, Ichikawa does not disclose the cutout. However, Xu teaches a circuit board cutout corresponding to a crimping part, in this case the drilling hole into which the crimping pin is inserted (¶ [0037], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 401 & 101b). This hole, or cutout, allows the crimping pin to be accurately and securely inserted into the printed circuit board ([0037], Fig. 1, ref. no. 400). In other words, the drilling hole or cutout does not interfere with the crimping pin but rather allows it to function as designed. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a cutout would have allowed the crimping part to function as desired, thereby facilitating device operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a cutout in order to have facilitated device operation.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Yanagida as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0081000 A1), hereinafter “Wang,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 7, Ichikawa does not disclose that the circuit board is a hard board. However, Wang teaches that a rigid or hard circuit board may be used in lieu of a flexible circuit board (¶ [0027]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the rigid circuit board for the hard circuit board would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning wiring module. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the hard circuit board for the flexible circuit board in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning wiring module.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Yanagida as applied to claim 8, above, and further in view of Kwag (US 2021/0167343 A1), hereinafter “Kwag,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 9, Ichikawa does not disclose the thermistor circuit on the flexible board. However, Kwag teaches a circuit board comprising a thermistor that allows the temperature of a plurality of battery cells to be measured (¶ [0012]-[0013] & [0099], Fig. 7, ref. nos. 128 & 130). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a thermistor circuit on the flexible circuit board would have allowed temperature information from the batteries to be gathered in order to prevent fire or explosion and thereby facilitate improved device safety (¶ [0099]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a thermistor circuit on the flexible circuit board in order to have facilitated improved device safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2029, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed apparatus is not taught by the cited references because the Office did not explain how Ichikawa would be physically modified.
In response to applicant's argument that the lack of an explanation as to how the components taught by Yanagida would be physically incorporated into the device disclosed by Ichikawwa, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood how and where to place the components in order to both yield a device that functioned as intended and provide the benefits derived from the inclusion of those components. Furthermore, Applicant has failed to provide any legal authority requiring that the Office provide such an explanation or blueprint detailing how to structurally combine the references in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights