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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Summary
This non-final office action for application 18/380,857 is in response to Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10, which was in reply to the election/restriction requirement dates 06 March 2026. Accordingly, claims 1-10 are under full consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 5 requires “at least one fixing clip for fixing the first flame-retardant plate and embedded in the second flame-retardant plate”. However, the originally filed disclosure describes the fixing clip as a component used for fixing a first flame-retardant plate during molding. The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art possession of a battery module busbar wherein the fixing clip is embedded in the second flame-retardant plate. The disclosure describes attachment of the fixing clip before and during molding of the second flame-retardant plate but does not disclose that the fixing clip remains within, is encapsulated by, or is embedded in the second flame-retardant plate after molding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida et al. (US-20200280153-A1); hereinafter “Yanagida”, in view of Choi et al. (US-9577240-B2), hereinafter “Choi”.
Regarding Claim 1, Yanagida discloses a battery module (electric connection member 10 is applied to a battery pack; see [0043]) busbar (electric connection member 10 includes a busbar 20; see [0044]) comprising: a body (busbar 20 includes terminal connecting portions 21 and a live portion 22 located between the terminal connecting portions; see [0045] and Fig. 6); a first terminal part provided on one end of the body (terminal connecting portions 21; see [0045] and Fig. 6) and connected to a battery module (connection member 10 is used to connect the positive electrode terminal 3A of the battery cell; see [0054]); a second terminal part provided on the other end of the body (terminal connecting portions 21; see [0045] and Fig. 6), connected to a battery module (connection member 10 is used to connect… the negative electrode terminal of the battery cell; see [0054]), and bent from the body (terminal connecting portions 21 are bent; see [0046]).
Yanagida does not explicitly teach a melting part. However, Choi discloses a melting part (The melting point range of the metal bridge 230 is determined in consideration of a maximum voltage and maximum current which the bus bar 200 should endure; see Col. 7 Lines 16-18) provided on one surface of the first terminal part (the present disclosure may be also applied to a case in which the metal bridge is applied only to any one lead; see Col. 7 Lines 61-63) and including a material which melts at a predetermined temperature or higher (the melting point of the metal bridge may be adjusted in the range of 150 to 300oC; see Col. 7 Lines 50-51).
Yanagida and Choi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery busbars. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yanagida by incorporating the teachings of Choi and including a melting part. Doing so would release an electric connection when the battery module is overheated (see Choi, Col. 7 Lines 4-6).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida et al. (US-20200280153-A1); hereinafter “Yanagida”, in view of Choi et al. (US-9577240-B2), hereinafter “Choi”, and Seo et al. (US-20220014065-A1), hereinafter “Seo”.
Regarding Claim 2, Yanagida and Choi together disclose the battery module busbar of claim 1.
Yanagida does not explicitly teach the bend being upward. However, Seo discloses wherein a terminal part (“busbar includes the terminals 100” (see [0062]); “terminal 100 includes… the terminal portions 120” (see [0065]); “terminal portion 120 may include a terminal body 122… and a contact terminal 124 provided at an end of the terminal body 122” (see [0070])) is bent to be inclined upward from the body (the contact terminal 124 may be bent upward from the end of the terminal body; see [0071]).
Yanagida and Seo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrically connected busbars. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it offers the benefit of providing a sufficient contact area without increasing a size of the terminal portion (see Seo [0072]). Further, Yanagida discloses a motivation for bending or shaping the busbar in any way so as to sufficiently connect a plurality of terminals to each other (see [0046]).
Claims 3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida et al. (US-20200280153-A1); hereinafter “Yanagida”, in view of Choi et al. (US-9577240-B2), hereinafter “Choi”, and Osada (JP-7006051-B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Yanagida and Choi together disclose the battery module busbar of claim 1. Choi further discloses wherein the melting part melts at 200 to 300oC (the melting point of the metal bridge may be adjusted in the range of 150 to 300oC; see Col. 7 Lines 50-51).
Modified Yanagida does not explicitly teach the material being a resin. However, Osada discloses a melting part (has an insulator 121 that melts at a temperature higher than the threshold value; see [0028]) that includes a synthetic resin material (The material constituting the insulator 121 is a resin material such as polypropylene or polyethylene; see [0031]) which melts at 200 to 300oC ("threshold value" is an arbitrary temperature set in advance by design and is about 200° C or higher; see [0026]).
Yanagida and Osada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery busbars. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Osada offers the motivation that the thickness of the resin can be adjusted so that it has an electrical resistivity of about 106 Ωm or more (see Osada [0031]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yanagida and Choi together disclose the battery module busbar of claim 1. Yanagida further discloses wherein the first terminal part and the second terminal part have a first fastening hole and a second fastening hole (Through holes 21A and 21B for coupling the busbar 20 to terminals are formed in the terminal connecting portions 21; see [0045]). The limitation claiming, “for fastening with fastening bolts” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a purpose of the fastening holes. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Still, Osada discloses wherein the fastening hole is for fastening with fastening bolts (The bus bar 110 is fixed to the input/output member 150 at the connection portion 110a via the bolt; see [0024]). Using a bolt would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable fixing of the busbar (see Osada [0024]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yanagida, Choi, and Osada together disclose the battery module busbar of claim 8. Osada further discloses wherein the melting part has a third fastening hole corresponding to the first fastening hole (see Figs. 5A-5B, Parts 120, 121, and 110a). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it allows for the busbar 110 to be fixed at the connection portion 110a (see Osada [0024]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yanagida and Choi together disclose the battery module busbar of claim 1. Modified Yanagida does not explicitly teach the predetermined temperature being exactly 200oC. However, Osada discloses wherein the predetermined temperature is 200oC ("threshold value" is an arbitrary temperature set in advance by design and is about 200° C or higher; see [0026]). As taught by Osada, this predetermined temperature would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it is an arbitrary temperature set in advance by design (see [0026]), making it clear that this temperature is set in accordance with the design needs of the apparatus.
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida et al. (US-20200280153-A1); hereinafter “Yanagida”, in view of Choi et al. (US-9577240-B2), hereinafter “Choi”, and Hwang et al. (US-20220415537-A1), hereinafter “Hwang”.
Regarding Claim 4, Yanagida and Choi together disclose the battery module busbar of claim 1. Yanagida discloses protective and insulating plates (cover 40 and protector portion 30), but does not explicitly teach flame retardant materials. However, Hwang discloses a first flame-retardant plate (material 31 having insulation and fire resistance; see [0045]) provided to surround the body (see Fig. 4 Part 31); a flame-retardant sheet (further including a fire-resistive tape 40; see [0064]) attached to surround the first flame-retardant plate (see Fig. 9 Part 40), and a second flame-retardant plate (material 31 having insulation and fire resistance; see [0045]) provided to surround the flame-retardant sheet (see Fig. 4 Part 31).
Yanagida and Hwang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery busbars. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Hwang offers the motivation of protecting the metal bar of the busbar from fire, and therefore preventing a short circuit (see [0055]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yanagida, Choi, and Hwang together disclose the battery module busbar of claim 4. Yanagida further discloses wherein one plate includes a connecting part for connection of another plate (coupling of the lock portions 42 of the cover 40 to the respective lock receiving portions 32 of the protector portion 30; see [0059]). Although Yanagida does not explicitly teach that the connected plates are flame-retardant materials, Hwang teaches a multilayer arrangement of fire-retardant layers, as discussed above with respect to claim 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide the connecting structure of Yanagida in the modified multilayer flame-retardant busbar assembly because such connecting structure would predictably secure adjacent surrounding layers together while allowing the layers to perform their known insulating/protective and flame-retardant functions.
Regarding Claim 7, Yanagida, Choi, and Hwang together disclose the battery module busbar of claim 6. Yanagida further discloses wherein the connecting part has a hole or slit shape (see Fig. 7 Part 32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights