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 .
BATTERY, ELECTRIC DEVICE, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD AND MANUFACTURING DEVICE OF BATTERY
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/346,762 Art Unit: 1727 January 23, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on July 03, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1).
As to Claims 1-2 and 13-15, Urano discloses a battery for an electric vehicle/machine, manufacturing method and manufacturing device thereof, comprising: a battery cell having an electrode terminal 1n; a voltage detection wire (sampling terminal) 2y; a busbar 2a; wherein the voltage detection wire is disposed between the busbar and electrode terminal and they are all welded to connect to each other (Abstract, Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0038, 0045 and 0061-0062]).
As to Claim 11, Urano discloses wherein the busbar comprises a through hole (the gap between 2f1 and 2f2) wherein the electrode terminal is exposed through the through-hole and the through-hole is staggered with the sampling terminal in a thickness direction (Fig. 3-4).
As to Claim 12, Urano discloses wherein the busbar and electrode terminal are made of copper (metal), and a voltage detection wire also reads on a metal (therefore the metals read on a same material) (Abstract and paragraphs [0106).
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.
Claim(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al. (US 2021/0384592 A1) in view of Yanagida (US 2020/0106075 A1).
As to Claim 3, Urano does not specifically disclose the claimed groove.
However, Yanagida teaches of a battery module, comprising: a busbar 20 having a groove 28a that projects over and accommodates a detection wire 50 (sampling terminal) (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0041]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the busbar of Urano to comprise a groove to accommodate a portion of the detection wire (sampling terminal) of Urano because Yanagida teaches that the components can be easily positioned relative to each other (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 4, the groove of Yanagida extends from an edge of the busbar in a direction orthogonal to a central axis of the electrode terminal (Fig. 1 and 6). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the busbar of Urano to read on the claim because Yanagida teaches that the components can be easily positioned relative to each other (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 5, Yanagida teaches wherein a projection of the groove on the electrode terminal does not exceed a central axis of the electrode terminal (Fig. 1). In addition, the courts have held that the claimed configuration or shape is a matter of design choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed configuration was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the busbar and electrode terminal arrangement of Urano to read on the claim because Yanagida teaches that the components can be easily positioned relative to each other (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claims 6-7, Yanagida does not specifically disclose the depth of the groove or the thickness of the sampling terminal or busbar. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the groove, busbar and electrode terminal arrangement of Urano to read on the claim because Yanagida teaches that the components can be easily positioned relative to each other (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 8, Yanagida teaches wherein the exposed end 52 of the detection wire (sampling terminal) is welded (which reads on an annular weld that encompasses the exposed end of the sampling terminal) (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0049]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weld of the sampling terminal of Urano to read on the claim because Yanagida teaches that the components can be easily positioned relative to each other (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 9, Yanagida does not specifically disclose the claimed relative dimensions. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the groove, busbar and electrode terminal arrangement of Urano to read on the claim because Yanagida teaches that the components can be easily positioned relative to each other (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 10, Yanagida teaches wherein an end of the detection wire (sampling terminal) does not exceed the central axis of the electrode terminal (Fig. 6). Yanagida does not specifically disclose the claimed relative dimensions. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the groove, busbar and electrode terminal arrangement of Urano to read on the claim because Yanagida teaches that the components can be easily positioned relative to each other (paragraph [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727