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
The amendment filed on May 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 12 are currently amended. Claims 7-10 remain withdrawn in the application. Claims 1 and 3-12 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 has overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on February 24, 2026.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
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 cells having a tab” in line 3. It is unclear whether the “a tab” of claim 12 refers to the “a tab” of line 11 of amended claim 1, which claim 12 depends upon, or to another “tab”. For examination purposes the examiner has interpreted the limitation of claim 12 to refer to the “a tab” of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 2016/0233476 A1, hereinafter “Okamoto”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0112014 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto discloses 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 ([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 ([0029] and Fig. 1, bus bars 30 held by bus bar holding plate 40); and
a plurality of tab lead-out slits extending from the first side to the second side and passing through the busbar bracket ([0038] and Fig. 9, outer slits 45A),
wherein the each of the tab lead-out slits has two opposite lead-out walls ([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 ([0038] and see Annotated Fig. 9 below, first lead-out wall formed on second connection portion 30B),
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 ([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 ([0038] and see Annotated Fig. 9 below, second lead-out wall formed on outer peripheral walls 41A).
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
Okamoto does not disclose wherein a tab is guided by a first bent portion of the conductive member into a corresponding one of the plurality of tab lead-out slits by contacting the at least one of the lead-out walls.
Kim discloses wherein a tab ([0083] and Figs. 4 and 7, electrode lead 111) is guided by a first bent portion of the conductive member ([0088]-[0090] and Figs. 4-5 and 7, lead contacting structure 241E) into a corresponding one of the plurality of tab lead-out slits ([0083] and Figs. 4 and 7, penetrating hole H1) by contacting the at least one of the lead-out walls ([0088] and Fig. 4, right surface of electrode lead 111 may contact and be connected to left surface of lead contacting structure 241E).
Okamoto and Kim 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 the bus bar of Okamoto to incorporate the teachings of Kim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would increase the contact area between the electrode lead and module bus bar, preventing high resistance at a contact connecting region, and increasing battery module stability (Kim [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Okamoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okamoto further discloses 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 ([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, modified Okamoto discloses the limitations of claim 3. Okamoto further discloses 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 ([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, modified Okamoto discloses the limitations of claim 4. Okamoto further discloses 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 6, modified Okamoto discloses the limitations of claim 5. Okamoto does not disclose wherein the first conductive member comprises a main body portion and the 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 discloses wherein the first conductive member comprises a main body portion ([0085] and Fig. 5, lower plate portion 241B) and the first bent portion ([0087] and Fig. 5, lead contacting structure 241E), the main body portion passes through the slot ([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 ([0089] and Fig. 4, lead contacting structure bending and protruding in an outward direction).
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 the bus bar of Okamoto to incorporate the teachings of Kim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would increase the contact area between the electrode lead and module bus bar, preventing high resistance at a contact connecting region, and increasing battery module stability (Kim [0089]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Okamoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okamoto further discloses wherein the conductive member is a copper bar, an aluminum bar, or an aluminum-copper composite bar ([0032], bus bars 30 made of aluminum, aluminum alloy, copper, or copper alloy).
Regarding claim 12, modified Okamoto discloses the limitations of claim 1. Okamoto further discloses a cell module ([0029] and Fig. 1, battery module 10), comprising: a busbar assembly according to claim 1 (see Annotated Fig. 1 above); and a plurality of cells ([0029] and Fig. 1, electric cells 20) , each of the cells having a tab inserted into the tab lead-out slit ([0045] and Fig. 12, lead terminals 22 inserted into outer slits 45A), each of the tab lead-out slits being inserted with at least one of the tabs thereinto ([0045] and Fig. 12, lead terminals 22 inserted into outer slits 45A), and the tabs being connected to the conductive member ([0049] and Fig. 12, lead terminals 22 welded to bus bars 30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, and 11-12 regarding Okamoto have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s assertion on pages 10-11 that Kim also fails to disclose or teach the above recitation of “a tab is guided by a first bent portion of the conductive member into a corresponding one of the plurality of tab lead-out slits by contacting the at least one of the lead-out walls”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, electrode lead 111, lead contacting structure 241E, penetrating hole H1, and left surface of lead contacting structure 241E are interpreted as “a tab”, “a first bent portion”, “a tab lead-out slit”, and “a lead-out wall”, respectively. For this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and amended claim 1 is rejected over Okamoto in view of Kim.
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 Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:45AM to 4:45PM.
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 30 July 2026
Prosecution Insights