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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
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 17-18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (US 2015/0222131 A1) in view of AT 512000 B1 (to Klammler et al.) – translation previously attached and relied upon below, in view of Huang et al. (US 20130194771 A1) in view of KR 20150056483 A (to Soo et al.) - translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claims 17-18, Kano teaches a water-resistant battery pack (para. [0059]) comprising: an outer housing (Figure 1, 10b) including floor wall (13a) and a plurality of side walls (13b, 13c, 13d, 13e) oriented transverse to the floor wall (13a); a controller (Figure 22, 209) operable to control an operation of the battery pack (208) (para. [0188]-[0189]); a terminal operable to connect to an electrical device for power transfer (para. [0012], [0044], [0070], [0077]); and a cell module (Figure 1, 17) within the outer housing (10b), the cell module (17) including:
a module housing (18a & 18b),
at least one battery cell (16a & 16b) supported by the module housing (18a & 18b) and including a cell header/(battery cell top or bottom end),
a conductive element/(23a..23e) electrically connecting the at least one battery cell (16a & 16b) to at least one of the controller and the terminal (para. [0069], [0188]-[0189]).
Kano fails to teach providing a protective film applied to at least a portion of the conductive element/busbar located between the module housing and at least one side wall of the plurality of side walls. Klammler teaches providing a protective film/ hydrophobic coating/(water-repellent layer) applied to at least a portion of the conductive element/busbar in order to extend the life of batteries and battery modules (page 3, lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide the battery module of Kano with a protective film applied to at least a portion of the conductive element/(23a..23e), which would be located between the module housing (18a & 18b) and at least one side wall of the plurality of side walls (13c & 13e), as taught by Klammler, in order to extend the life of batteries and battery modules.
Kano fails to teach wherein the controller is disposed within the outer housing and operable to control an operation of the battery pack and wherein the controller includes a substrate. Hwang teaches a battery pack (10) (Figure 1) comprising a protection circuit module (PCM) (120) and a battery cell (110) within a housing/portable device (1) (as illustrated); and wherein the PCM (120) (Figure 6) comprises a substrate (121) and a controller/(protection device (122)) mounted on the substrate (121) and electrically connected to the wiring pattern formed on the substrate (121) such that it is operable to control an operation of the battery pack, in order to thereby control over-charge and over-discharge in the battery cell (110) (para. [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to dispose the controller in Kano within the outer housing such that the controller is operable to control an operation of the battery pack and wherein the controller includes a substrate, as taught by Hwang, to electrically connect the controller to the wiring pattern formed on the substrate in order to thereby control over-charge and over-discharge in the battery cell.
Kano in view of Huang fails to teach wherein a base coating is applied to the substrate; and wherein the protective film is also applied over the base coating of the controller. Soo et al. teaches a method of making printed circuit board substrates comprising applying a base coating/(primer layer) to the substrate (10) (Figure 4) in order to enhance the adhesion between the substrate (10) and the deposition layer on the surface of the substrate (10); and teaches applying a protective film/(protective coating layer (30)) over the base coating/(primer layer) and substrate (10) in order to protect the substrate and the deposition layer (page 9, lines 2-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to apply a base coating to the substrate in Kano in view of Huang in order to enhance the adhesion between the substrate (10) and the deposition layer on the surface of the substrate; and to apply the protective film also over the base coating, as taught by Soo et al., in order to protect the substrate.
With respect to claim 20, Kano teaches a water-resistant ring (21a) provided at the cell header/end, the water-resistant ring (21a) including an annular rib protruding in an axial direction of the at least one battery cell (16a) (as illustrated in Figure 11) (para. [0058]).
With respect to claim 21, Klammler further teaches wherein the protective film comprises a vapor-deposited coating (page 3, lines 10-19).
With respect to claims 22-23, Klammler further teaches wherein the protective film comprises a poly(p-xylylene) polymer/parylene (page 4, lines 3-14).
With respect to claim 24, Klammler further teaches wherein the vapor-deposited coating has a thickness of 5 um (page 4, lines 3-14), which falls within the instantly claim range of less than about 20 um. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try a thickness that is less than that instantly claimed in order to minimize manufacturing cost.
With respect to claim 25, since Klammler teaches the same vapor-deposited coating material as that instantly claimed, then it would be obvious that it would be capable of performing as claimed herein, such that it would have a dielectric breakdown strength between 200 Volts/micron (V/um) and 300 V/um.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano (US 2015/0222131 A1) in view of AT 512000 B1 (to Klammler et al.) in view of Huang et al. (US 20130194771 A1) in view of KR 20150056483 A (to Soo et al.), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sakakibarak (US 20070178372 A1).
With respect to claim 19, modified Kano discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach an insulating sheet provided between the conductive element and the outer housing. Sakakibarak teaches a battery module (Figure 1, 99) comprising an insulating sheet (74) provided between a conductive element (73) and an outer housing (80) in order to electrically insulate the outer housing from the battery cell (72) (para. [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to provide an insulating sheet between the conductive element and the outer housing in modified Kano, as taught by Sakakibarak, in order to electrically insulate the outer housing from the battery cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17-25 have been considered but are moot due to applicant’s amendments made to the claims. A new rejection is set forth above in view of Huang et al. (US 20130194771 A1) in view of KR 20150056483 A (to Soo et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached on 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 1/8/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725