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 .
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 15 recites “restricting” column. The term “restricting” renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear the metes and bounds that would encompass “restricting”. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner is taking the position that columns that creates a recess would be considered “restricting” columns.
The term “tightly” in claims 1, 7, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner is taking the position that any degree of pressure would correspond to the claimed “tightly”
The terms “fool-proofing” hole and “fool-proofing” column in claims 2 and 8 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The term “fool-proofing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner is taking the position that any design would correspond to the claimed “fool-proofing” hole/column.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KR 20200124478.
Regarding claim 1, KR ‘478 discloses a busbar assembly comprising a supporting frame, a busbar body, and a rivet buckle. The structure taught therein corresponds to the claimed invention as shown in the following annotated Figure 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
504
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the combination of reference (17) and (17’) discloses the restricting column being recessed inwardly with a recess.
Alternatively, although Figure 4 of KR ‘478 appears to disclose that (17`) is a blind hole (line across connecting the two columns/boss), thereby creating the restricting column being recessed inwardly with a recess, the disclosure of KR ‘478 recites that (17’) is a hole or a shaft. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use blind hole. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that holes are either blind hole or through hole. Thus, choice of a blind hole given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilized a blind hole, thereby achieving the restricting column being recessed inwardly with a recess, dependent upon the desired functionality of the busbar assembly without undue experimentation and with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the limitation “snapping” and “clamped”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). KR ‘478 discloses the busbar assembly structure as set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, KR ‘478 discloses the through-hole and restricting column as claimed (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, please see Figure 4.
Claims 3-4, 6-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200124478.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 9-10, KR ‘478 discloses the fool-proofing holes as set forth above and the fool-proofing column is an interference fit with the fool-proofing holes (see annotated Fig above). Additionally, KR ‘478 also disclose the recess as set forth above and the river buckle is in an interference fit with the recess (see annotated Fig. above). However, KR ‘478 fails to disclose a first hole, a second hole, a first recess segment, and a second recess segment with the structure or shape as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the fool-proofing hole and the recess to have the shape as claimed wherein the fool-proofing column is an interference fit with the structure of the fool-proofing hole and the rivet buckle is an interference fit with the structure of the recess. The motivation would have been obvious to explore the shapes and structure as claimed in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation to successfully secure the busbar body to the supporting frame. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the structure set forth in claims 3-4 are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, KR ‘478 discloses that the height of the restricting column is larger than that of the busbar body (Fig. 4), however, fails to disclose the height of the busbar body is 0.4-0.5 mm and height of the restricting column is 0.8-1 mm as presently claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the height of the busbar body to be 0.4-0.5 mm and height of the restricting column to be 0.8-1 mm. The motivation would have been obvious to explore the ranges between 0.4-0.5 mm per height of the busbar body and between 0.8-1 mm per height of the restricting column in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation to successfully secure the busbar body and supporting frame together. It is known in the busbar assembly to have the height of the restricting column to be larger than that of the busbar body in order to secure the supporting frame and busbar body successfully and would thus be obvious to experiment or optimize. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in claims 6 and 12 are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, KR ‘478 discloses a battery pack comprising a power battery module (Abstract, description) comprising a busbar assembly comprising a supporting frame, a busbar body, and a rivet buckle. The structure of the busbar assembly taught therein corresponds to the claimed invention as shown in the following annotated Figure 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
504
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the combination of reference (17) and (17’) discloses the restricting column being recessed inwardly with a recess.
Alternatively, although Figure 4 of KR ‘478 appears to disclose that (17`) is a blind hole (line across connecting the two columns/boss), thereby creating the restricting column being recessed inwardly with a recess, the disclosure of KR ‘478 recites that (17’) is a hole or a shaft. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to use blind hole. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that holes are either blind hole or through hole. Thus, choice of a blind hole given only two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilized a blind hole, thereby achieving the restricting column being recessed inwardly with a recess, dependent upon the desired functionality of the busbar assembly without undue experimentation and with reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, although KR ‘478 discloses a power battery module, KR ‘478 fails to explicitly disclose a cylindrical power battery module as presently claimed. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose cylindrical power battery module with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that battery cells can be used in cylindrical cell module, prismatic cell module, or pouch cell module. Thus, choice of a cylindrical power battery module given only three alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art, especially since KR ‘478 does not disparages the usage of a cylindrical power battery module.
Regarding the limitation “snapping” and “clamped”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). KR ‘478 discloses the busbar assembly structure as set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, KR ‘478 discloses the through-hole and restricting column as claimed (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, please see Fig. 4.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200124478 in view of JP 2013045602.
KR ‘478 discloses the fool-proofing holes as set forth above and the fool-proofing column is an interference fit with the fool-proofing holes (see annotated Fig above). Additionally, KR ‘478 also disclose the recess as set forth above and the river buckle is in an interference fit with the recess (see annotated Fig. above). However, KR ‘478 fails to disclose a first hole, a second hole, a first recess segment, and a second recess segment with the structure or shape as claimed.
JP ‘602 discloses a power storage device comprising a structure with a usage of a fool-proofing holes and the structure of the recess (All Figs). JP ‘602 discloses that this particular structure increases the structural integrity between two members by securing them together (prevents rotation). With regards to the diameter of the first hole being smaller than that of the second hole segment and the diameter of first recess segment being smaller than that of the second recess diameter, JP ‘602 fails to explicitly disclose the diameter as claimed. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
In the instant case, having a diameter difference between the first and second hole and the first and second recess segment to be of 0.00001 to be corresponds to be a relationship to be “smaller” does not appear confer patentability to the claims in the absence of a showing of critically associated with the claimed diameter range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the fool-proofing hole and the recess to have the shape as claimed wherein the fool-proofing column is an interference fit with the structure of the fool-proofing hole and the rivet buckle is an interference fit with the structure of the recess, since JP ‘602 discloses that having these particular shape securely attached two members from rotating.
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
KR 20200124478 in view of CN 114566764.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, KR ‘478 discloses a general battery module as set forth above, however, fails to disclose the all the features as presently claimed.
CN ‘764 discloses a cylindrical power battery module comprising a busbar assembly and one more module. The module comprises a plurality of one or more singles, an input plate, the input plate being connected to the single cell of an input terminal of the cylindrical power battery module, and an output plate, the out plate being connected to the single cell of an output terminal of the cylindrical power battery module, wherein the busbar body is provided between the input plate and the output plate, used for in a first direction cooperating the input plate and the output plate to connect two single cells provided in the first direction adjacently in series, used for in a second direction to connect two single cells provided in the second direction adjacently in parallel (Figs. 1-8, description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘478’s busbar with the structure as claimed to be used in a battery module with the structure as claimed, since CN ‘764 discloses that this configuration would lead to a reliable circuit connection, high space utilization rate, and high energy density (Abstract).
Furthermore, the recitation in the claims that the busbar body is “used for in a first direction… used for in a second diction…” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that KR ‘478 in view of CN ‘764 disclose the busbar structure as presently claimed, it is clear that the busbar structure of KR ‘478 in view of CN ‘764 would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. “used for in a first direction…” and “used for in a second direction…”, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, KR ‘478 fails to disclose busbar body comprises one or more conductive unit as claimed. CN ‘764 discloses a busbar body comprises a conductive unit with the structure as claimed (All Figs, claims 1, 6, and 9, and description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘478’s busbar body with the structure as claimed, since CN ‘764 discloses that this configuration would lead to a reliable circuit connection, high space utilization rate, and high energy density (Abstract).
Furthermore, the recitation in the claims that the positive zone is “used for abutting a positive end of a single cell” and negative zone is “used for abutting a negative end of the single cell” merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that KR ‘478 in view of CN ‘764 disclose the busbar structure as presently claimed, it is clear that the positive and negative zone of KR ‘478 in view of CN ‘764 would be capable of performing the intended use presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights