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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A, directed to claims 4-6 in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 23, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "each of the tab lead-out slit" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1, which recites “a tab lead-out slit,” but does not recite a plurality of tab lead-out slits.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (US 2016/0233476 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto et al. teaches a busbar assembly (see Annotated Fig. 1 below, busbar assembly), comprising:
a busbar bracket having a first side and a second side facing away from each other (paragraph 0029 and see Annotated Figs. 1 and 9 below, bus bar holding plate 40, first side facing away from electric cells 20, and second side facing into electric cells 20);
a conductive member arranged on the busbar bracket (paragraph 0029 and Fig. 1, bus bars 30 held by bus bar holding plate 40);
and a tab lead-out slit extending from the first side to the second side and passing through the busbar bracket (paragraph 0038 and Fig. 9, outer slits 45A),
wherein the tab lead-out slit has two opposite lead-out walls (paragraph 0038 and see Annotated Fig. 9 below, first lead-out wall formed on second connection portion 30B and second lead-out wall formed on outer peripheral walls 41A),
at least one of the lead-out walls is formed on the conductive member (paragraph 0038 and see Annotated Fig. 9 below, first lead-out wall formed on second connection portion 30B).
Okamoto et al. Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
710
902
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okamoto et al. Annotated Fig. 9
PNG
media_image2.png
716
1390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Okamoto et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Okamoto et al. further teaches wherein the two lead-out walls of the tab lead-out slit comprise a first lead-out wall and a second lead-out wall, the first lead-out wall is formed on the conductive member (paragraph 0038 and see Annotated Fig. 9 above, first lead-out wall formed on second connection portion 30B), and the second lead-out wall is formed on the busbar bracket (paragraph 0038 and see Annotated Fig. 9 below, second lead-out wall formed on outer peripheral walls 41A).
Regarding claim 3, Okamoto et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2. Okamoto et al. further teaches wherein the busbar bracket is provided with a slot (see Annotated Figs. 2 below and 9 above, slot 1), the slot comprises a first side wall and a second side wall opposite to each other (see Annotated Fig. 9 below, slot 1, first side wall, and second side wall), the conductive member passes through the slot (see Annotated Fig. 9 above, bus bar 30 passes through slot 1) and is attached to the first side wall or the second side wall (paragraph 0035 and Fig. 2, bus bar 30 is locked in holding walls 41 with elastic locking pieces 43), the first lead-out wall is formed on a surface of the conductive member facing the second side wall or the first side wall (see Annotated Fig. 9 above, slot 1 and first lead-out wall facing second side wall), and the second lead-out wall is formed on the second side wall or the first side wall of the slot (see Annotated Fig. 9 above, slot 1, second lead-out wall formed on second side wall).
Okamoto et al. Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
850
1038
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Okamoto et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3. Okamoto et al. further teaches wherein the busbar bracket is provided with a plurality of slots arranged side by side (see Annotated Fig. 2 above, slots 1-4), the conductive member comprises a first conductive member (paragraph 0029, bus bars 30), the first conductive member is arranged in at least one of the slots (see Annotated Fig. 2 above, bus bars 30 arranged in slots 1-4), and the first conductive member only penetrates through one of the slots (see Annotated Fig. 2 above, each bus bar 30 only penetrates through one slot per bus bar).
Regarding claim 5, Okamoto et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4. Okamoto et al. further teaches wherein the slot provided with the first conductive member is the outermost slot on the busbar bracket (see Annotated Fig. 2 above, bus bars 30 on slots 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Okamoto et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Okamoto et al. further teaches wherein the conductive member is a copper bar, an aluminum bar, or an aluminum-copper composite bar (paragraph 0032, bus bars 30 made of aluminum, aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy).
Regarding claim 12, Okamoto et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Okamoto et al. further teaches a cell module (paragraph 0029 and Fig. 1, battery module 10), comprising: a busbar assembly having the busbar assembly according to claim 1 (see Annotated Fig. 1 above); and a cell (paragraph 0029 and Fig. 1, electric cells 20) having a tab inserted into the tab lead-out slit (paragraph 0045 and Fig. 12, lead terminals 22 inserted into outer slits 45A), at least one tab is inserted into each of the tab lead-out slit (paragraph 0045 and Fig. 12, lead terminals 22 inserted into outer slits 45A), and the tab is connected to the conductive member (paragraph 0049 and Fig. 12, lead terminals 12 welded to bus bars 30).
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 2016/0233476 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0112014 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Okamoto et al. teaches the limitations of claim 5. Okamoto et al. does not teach wherein the first conductive member comprises a main body portion and a first bent portion, the main body portion passes through the slot, and the first bent portion is connected to the main body portion, arranged on the first side of the busbar bracket, and bent relative to the main body portion in a direction away from the slot.
Kim et al. teaches wherein the first conductive member comprises a main body portion (paragraph 0085 and Fig. 5, lower plate portion 241B) and a first bent portion (paragraph 0087 and Fig. 5, lead contacting structure 241E), the main body portion passes through the slot (paragraph 0085, penetrating hole H1 is connected to side portions of lower plate portion 241B), and the first bent portion is connected to the main body portion (Fig. 5), arranged on the first side of the busbar bracket (Figs. 2 and 4, lead contacting structure 241E facing away from secondary batteries 110), and bent relative to the main body portion in a direction away from the slot (paragraph 0089 and Fig. 4, lead contacting structure bending and protruding in an outward direction).
Okamoto et al. and Kim et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of busbar assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okamoto et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kim et al. so that the first conductive member comprises a main body portion and a first bent portion, the main body portion passes through the slot, and the first bent portion is connected to the main body portion, arranged on the first side of the busbar bracket, and bent relative to the main body portion in a direction away from the slot. Doing so would increase the contact area of the conductive member with the cell tab, preventing high resistance at the point of contact between the conductive member and the cell tab (Kim et al. paragraph 0089).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 19 February 2026