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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on May 12, 2026, is acknowledged. Note that claims 10-18 has been canceled.
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 8 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 8 recites “another side of the supporting portion” in line 2 and “another side of the connecting portion” in line 4. It is unclear what is “another side”? Is this the edge, face, side, front, back, etc. It would help clarify the claim if additional structure could be added to the claim to clarify what structure is being claimed.
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(s) 1-3, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatol (US20220385014) in view of WO2010066093.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hatol teaches a busbar assembly comprising (see fig. 6-8; [0033-40]):
a busbar plate #144/146 electrically connected to PCB (printed circuit board [0007]) #128/130 which are connected respective tabs of PSUs (i.e. power supply units) #120;
a busbar terminal electrically connected to an external device (see abstract); and
a wherein the busbar plate #144/146 and the busbar terminal #188/212 [0048] are electrically connected via a butt joint.
As seen in figures 6-8, Hatol teaches the butt joint is formed by a boundary portion between a busbar plate and a busbar terminal in a state where the busbar plate and the busbar terminal are disposed to face each other (claim 2).
Hatol does not specifically teach using welding to secure the butt joint.
It is noted that the present application defines butt welding as a method of welding boundaries of two base materials in a state where the base materials that are subject to welding face each other [0069].
WO093 also teaches a busbar and ways in which a busbar can be connected to an external device. WO093 teaches a busbar #2 with an external connection head #1 electrically connected with each other (abstract). The head ( 1 ) is an inverted T-shape and consists of a narrower rectangular main body ( 1-1 ) and a wider root part ( 1-2 ). The plug socket of the bus bar ( 2 ) is provided with a notch ( 2-1 ) that matches the root part ( 1-2 ) of the head ( 1 ) and in which said head is embedded. The two opposing sides of the root part ( 1-2 ) of the head ( 1 ) across its width are respectively connected with the bus bar ( 2 ) by welding connection sections ( 3 ). It has the distinct advantages of a wider welding contact surface, and strong and non-deforming welding, while avoiding consumption of costly low-resistance metal, so it ensures good electrical conductivity after connection, and a low-cost, simple and convenient fabrication process (see abstract).
It is also noted that butt welding is a product-by-process limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized welding as taught by WO093 to join the busbar and external terminal in Hatol as WO093 teaches it is well known in the busbar art to utilize welding of two components that face each other in order to have a wider welding contact surface and strong and non-deforming weld and ensure good electrical conductivity and be low cost.
Regarding claim 3, It is noted that Hatol, for example in fig. 7 below, teaches supporting portions and a first plates #210 connected to the busbar #146. However, if it difficult to determine wherein the busbar plate comprises a supporting portion and a first plate connected to one side of the supporting portion, wherein the busbar terminal comprises a connecting portion disposed on the supporting portion; and the welding portion comprises a first welding portion formed between one side of the connecting portion and one side of the first plate based on the figure.
[AltContent: textbox (Support portions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
832
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hatol teaches that the PSU, cells #120, can be connected to the bus bar holes via pins #160 (see fig. 2; [0026]) and that the busbar terminal further comprises a terminal lead connected to the connecting portion [0039].
Regarding claim 9, Hatol teaches the use of brackets #126 which read on a frame disposed between the plurality of battery cells and the busbar plate (see fig. 2 [0026]).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatol (US20220385014) and WO2010066093, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of either Kim (US20230327294) or Kim (US20210175567).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Hatol teaches that one or more dimension parameters of each bus bar 144, 146 may be designed so that the bus bars 144, 146 are capable of passing the designed power requirements. For example, a thickness of the bus bars 144, 146 and/or the length or width dimensions of the various flanges (e.g., top flange, bottom flange, bridge flange, system interface flange terminal, etc.) of the bus bars 144, 146 may be altered to yield electrical characteristics sufficient to match at least the designed power. In an embodiment, bus bars 144, 146 are capable of transmitting 15 kW of power supplied by the PSUs 120 to the PDS 110.
Hatol does not specifically disclose the thickness of the busbar or support plates [0035].
However, Kim ‘294 also teaches a battery bus bar and support plate and that to support a pressing force of the welding jig, the bus bar needs to have a certain thickness sufficient to have a certain mechanical rigidity or more. Accordingly, there is a great limitation in reducing a thickness of the bus bar in the related art [0010].
Additionally, Kim ‘567 also teaches a battery bus bar and support plate and that the thickness of the support region 132 is smaller than approximately 0.5 mm, the support region 132 may have low rigidity so as to be easily ruptured during welding with a bus bar or due to external shocks. If the thickness of the support region 132 is greater than approximately 1 mm, the support region 132 may have lower capability of elastically supporting the bus bar/the terminal region [0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to have optimized the thickness of the bus bar and support plates in Hatol as taught by either Kim ‘567 or Kim ‘294 in order to provide the required mechanical rigidity during welding and to external shocks.
Additionally, it should also be known that limitations relating to size and dimensions are held not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); MPEP 2144.04 IV. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN114221286 teaches the use of butt welding is known for bus bars.
Please note additional art cited on the PTO-892 pertaining to bus bars and their connections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights