Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/401,367

BUSBAR, BATTERY MODULE, AND BATTERY PACK

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 30, 2023
Priority
Mar 28, 2023 — CN 202310314150.9 +1 more
Examiner
EGGERDING, ALIX ECHELMEYER
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
EVE Energy Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allowance Rate
448 granted / 781 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
806
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
67.1%
+27.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 781 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 5/31/25 has been considered by the examiner. 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 3, 12, and 19 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 3 and 12 recite the limitation "the positioning hole" in the third lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claims 1, from which claims 3 and 12 depend, does not recite a positioning hole. For the purposes of expediting prosecution, claims 3 and 12 will be interpreted as being dependent from claims 2 and 11, respectively, which do recited a positioning hole. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 recites the limitation "each busbar" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the second line only requires one busbar. For the purposes of expediting prosecution, the second line of the claim will be interpreted as requiring “a plurality of busbars”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fouet et al. (EP 3 872 891). Regarding claim 1, Fouet teaches a busbar, or repeating conductor (22), comprising: a first connecting portion, or first terminal (222), welded to a positive electrode of a first battery cell (Figure 3, [0014]); a second connecting portion, or second terminal (224), connected to the first connecting portion (222) and welded to a negative electrode of a second battery cell (Figure 3, [0014]), wherein a central axis of each of the components discussed above are coincided (Figures 2-4). Regarding claims 10 and 19, Fouet teaches the busbar of claim 1 for use in a battery pack comprising a battery module comprising a plurality of cells ([0007]). As for claims 5 and 14, Fouet teaches a side of the second connecting portion (224) away from the first connecting portion (222) is recessed with an avoidance portion form a connection gap (232) to avoid the positive electrode (48) of the second battery cell (Figure 4). Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Felser et al. (US 2015/0050531). Regarding claims 1 and 10, Felser teaches a busbar having first and second connecting portions (26), connected together and welded to positive electrodes of first and second battery cells (22) (Figure 3, [0040]). Felser further teaches that each of the connection portions and each of the central axes of the cells are coincided with each other (Figure 2). Regrading claims 6 and 15, Felser teaches that the first and second connecting portions (26) which are connected together by a curved portion, or narrowing portion (30) (Figure 3, annotated below). PNG media_image1.png 670 531 media_image1.png Greyscale With regard to claims 7-9 and 16-18, Felser teaches the claimed configuration, as seen in annotated Figure 3, below: PNG media_image2.png 574 794 media_image2.png Greyscale 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. Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouet as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (US 2023/0402719). The teachings of Fouet as discussed above are incorporated herein. Fouet teaches the busbar of claims 1 and 10 but is silent on the positioning hole. However, Fouet does teach, as discussed above and as further shown in annotated Figure 4a below, that the central axis of the first connection portion is welded to the electrode of the battery. PNG media_image3.png 495 669 media_image3.png Greyscale Fouet fails to teach a positioning hole. Masuda teaches a busbar (50) having connection portions, with a first connecting portion for connection to a positive electrode, and wherein a positioning hole, or busbar hole (50a), is provided for fitting alignment of the positive electrode terminal, followed by welding, to improve positioning and fitting (Figures 5-8, [0031], [0047]). Masuda further teaches that the positioning hole arrangement discussed above is desirable for efficiently joining a terminal and a busbar while reducing heat influence to a gasket ([0004]-[0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form a positioning hole in the busbar of Fouet in the area where the busbar is welded to the positive electrode, as seen above, such as suggested by Masuda in order to efficiently join the electrode and the busbar while reducing heat influence to a gasket. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fouet as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2010/0047676). The teachings of Fouet as discussed above are incorporated herein. Fouet teaches the busbar of claims 1 and 10 but fails to teach a fixing hole located on the central axis and configured to be connected to a plastic bracket. Park teaches a busbar, or connection part (320), having a fixing hole, or groove (360), located on the central axis connecting both ends of the busbar and first and second battery cells (e.g., 200-204) mounted to a bracket, or bottom (103), via protrusion (160) (Figures 1-2 and 5, [0046]). The examiner notes that the claims do not positively recite the bracket, so neither the bracket nor the material of the bracket, i.e. plastic, are given patentable weight. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the known fixing hole structure of Park in the busbar of Fouet in order to mount the busbar, thereby ensuring proper placement of the busbar. It has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2143 I (D) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm. 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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. /ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12731810
ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12725862
ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
3y 5m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12700636
BATTERY
3y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12683223
BATTERY MODULE WITH IMPROVED STABILITY
5y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12640433
BATTERY MODULE
3y 8m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+17.9%)
3y 11m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 781 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month