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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/17/2025 and 01/29/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner acknowledges that CN’710 does not disclose a liquid crystalline polymer. Nevertheless, the argument that the two different polymer compositions are not functionally equivalent is not persuasive. While the chemical composition of both materials differs, both compositions show insulation properties and are applied in environments requiring such insulation properties and are therefore in the same field of endeavor namely insulative polymer compositions. Functional equivalency is determined solely by the function a prior art element performs. The production process or structure is not relevant for the determination of functional equivalency. Seeking an insulation material for the application on a busbar, requiring high thermal and electrical stability would have made it obvious to the skilled artisan to apply the polymer composition disclosed by Kim to a busbar. As disclosed by CN’710 the application of an insulation material to a busbar is a known concept. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
The argument that Kim and CN’710 are not in the same field of endeavor is not persuasive. While the examiner acknowledges that CN’710 does not disclose a liquid crystalline polymer. Both references teach an insulative polymer composition and are therefore in the same field of endeavor namely insulative polymer compositions.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Young Shin ( US 2013/0123420 A1; hereinafter "Kim") and (CN105869710B; hereinafter "CN'710" ). A machine translation is being used for citations of “CN’710”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an insulative portion comprising a polymer composition, further wherein the polymer composition exhibits a melt viscosity of about 0.1 to about 80 Pa-s as determined in accordance with ISO 11443:2021 at a shear rate of 1,000 s-1 and temperature of about 15℃ above the melting temperature of the composition, and a deflection temperature under load of 222℃ and above as determined in accordance with ISO 75:2013 at a load of 1.8 MPa (Claim 1). Kim discloses the polymer composition may be used for high voltage electronic components such as battery cover, electrical connectors, housings, electrical control, circuit breakers, switches, power electronics or combinations thereof (Claim 32). However, Kim does not disclose the insulating coating is used with a busbar. CN ‘710 teaches a busbar comprising an insulative portion that covers at least a portion of an electrically conductive body (Claim 1). Kim and CN’710 are analogous art in the same field of endeavor, namely insulative polymer compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the polymer composition per the teachings of Kim, and the motivation to do so would have been the polymer composition of CN’710 and Kim are functional equivalents. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Alternatively, Kim discloses the application of the polymer composition on electrical elements such as electrical connectors, housings, electrical control, circuit breakers, switches, power electronics or combinations thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve a similar device in the same way and apply the coating from a comparable environment to the busbar in order to improve the busbar.
Regarding claim 2, considering the polymer composition Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim teaches the polymer composition exhibits a melting temperature of 350°C (Kim, [0040]) which falls within the required range.
Regarding claims 3-5, considering the polymer composition Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses wherein the aromatic carboxylic acid is 2,6-naphthelene dicarboxylic acid (Kim: Claim 6). Kim further discloses the aromatic carboxylic acid is 2,6-naphthelene dicarboxylic acid which falls within the required options.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, considering the polymer composition Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses that the insulative portion contains repeating units derived from one or more aromatic diols, or more specifically, the aromatic diols include hydroquinone, 4,4’-biphenol, or a combination thereof [Claim 5]. Kim further discloses that the aromatic diol is 4,4'-biphenol which falls within the required options. (Kim: Claim 5, Claim 19).
Regarding claim 8, considering the polymer composition Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses suitable thermotropic liquid
crystalline polymers may include aromatic polyesters, aromatic poly(esteramides), aromatic poly(estercarbonates), aromatic polyamides, etc., and may likewise contain repeating units formed from one or more aromatic hydroxycarboxylic acids, aromatic dicarboxylic acids, aromatic diols, aromatic aminocarboxylic acids, aromatic amines, aromatic diamines, etc., as well as combinations thereof. , aromatic diol (Kim: [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, considering the polymer composition Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim teaches the liquid crystalline polymers constitute from about 40 wt. % to about 70 wt. % of the composition which falls within the required range (Kim, Claim 12).
Regarding claims 10-13, Kim does not explicitly disclose the thermal diffusivity or the derived thermal conductivities nor the dielectric strength. The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, cross-plane thermal conductivity of about 0.8 W/m-K and an in-plane thermal conductivity of either about 2 W/m-K or more or from about 4 to about 8 W/m-K and the dielectric strength of 10 kilovolts per millimeter or more. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the thermal diffusivity and therefore the cross and in-plane thermal diffusivities and the dielectric strength would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claims 14-17, considering the polymer composition Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses “Various fillers may also be incorporated in the polymer composition if desired (Kim, [0079])”. Kim further discloses “Mineral fillers may also be employed in the polymer composition to help achieve the desired properties and/or color…, and…Clay minerals may be particularly suitable for use in the present invention. Examples of such clay minerals include, for instance, talc (Kim, [0083]).”
Regarding claims 18-22, considering the polymer composition Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim discloses the size of the inorganic particles may generally vary, but is typically about 5 micrometers or less, in some embodiments about 2 micrometers or less… (Kim, [0057]) Furthermore, Kim teaches that the composition further comprises a mineral filler (Kim, [Claim 15]) and that various fillers may also be incorporated in the polymer composition if desired (Kim [0056]). In addition to the previous teachings Kim discloses that a variety of inorganic particles may generally be employed in the composition of the present invention, such as diatomaceous earth and wollastonite… (Kim, [0056]) and specifies the following amounts, from about 1 wt. % to about 60 wt. % of inorganic particles which falls within the recited range (Kim, [004]).
Regarding claim 22, Kim does not explicitly disclose the intrinsic thermal conductivity, The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, 100 W/m-K or more. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the intrinsic thermal conductivity would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 23, regarding the polymer composition Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim teaches a Comparative tracking index of 274 volts or more which falls within the required range (Kim, [Claim 26]).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Young Shin (US2013/0123420A1; hereinafter "Kim") in view of ( CN105869710B; hereinafter "CN'710") as applied top claims 24/25/26 and further in view of (US 20160301057; hereinafter “Subramanian”). A machine translation is being used for citations of CN’710.
Regarding claim 24, Kim teaches the polymer composition but does not teach the busbar. CN’710 teaches that most existing busbar at the time of the filling of the application did not meet the requirements to be used in “new energy vehicles” and points out “The above embodiments are only intended to illustrate the technical concept and the features of the present invention, and the purpose of the present invention is to enable those skilled in the art to understand the contents of the present invention and to implement the present invention. Equivalent changes or modifications made in accordance with the spirit of the invention are intended to be included within the scope of the invention.” The inventors did not disclose the specific properties of the mentioned polymer composition. CN’710 does not specify how and or where exactly the busbar is installed in a vehicle or even battery set up. (Subramanian) describes the function of the busbar in a battery cell assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bar combine the insulated busbar according to CN’710, including a thermal resistant, high voltage coating according to (Kim), and use it as described in (Subramanian).
Regarding claim 24, (Subramanian) discloses a plurality of battery cells and a bus bar assembly that electrically connects the plurality of battery cells (Kim, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 25, (Subramanian) discloses electrified vehicle powertrains are typically equipped with a battery assembly having a plurality of battery cells (Subramanian, [0003]).
Regarding claim 26, (Subramanian) teaches…” the engine 14, which in one embodiment is an internal combustion engine, and the generator 18 may be connected through a power transfer unit 30, such as a planetary gear set. Of course, other types of power transfer units, including other gear sets and transmissions, may be used to connect the engine 14 to the generator 18.” (Subramanian: [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Hwang Seung Jae et al. (WO2020242272A1) discloses an electrically insulating heat dissipating busbar; and
Henzel et al. (US12492282B2) discloses a busbar, at least partly covered with a thermoplastic polyurethane composition.
Hosada et al. (US 2007/0200094 A1) discloses a Liquid-crystalline Polymer composition, a method for producing the same and a molded article using the same; and
Kim In Ki et al. (US 11,499,009 B2) discloses a liquid crystal polymer composite composition according to the invention it mentions an article produced of the composition and specifically mentions a battery case comprising the article and a battery comprising the battery case; and Fukatsu Hiroki et al. (WO2021065417A) discloses a Liquid crystalline resin composition and an electronic component comprising a molded article of said resin; and
Saga Yuji (US 2008/0265202 A1) discloses a thermally conductive and electrically resistive liquid crystalline polymer composition.
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 SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights