DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 – 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1, 2, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0279105 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2022165340 A). See provided Translation of KR ‘340 A Abstract, as no PDF of KR ‘340 A (the actual published patent) was able to be obtained at this time.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao et al. discloses a cells contact system (
PNG
media_image1.png
798
1300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), comprising: a support (Figures, elements 110/112 -carrier assembly/housing); one or more busbars arranged on the support (Paragraph 0024 and elements 130), wherein each of the busbars is configured to be connected to respective one of cells (ibid); and an acquisition line (element 118) arranged on the support and electrically connected to the busbars (Paragraphs 0021 – 0031).
Regarding the limitation that the acquisition line comprises a bent portion, and the support is provided with an opening corresponding to the bent portion, while Zhao et al. appears to disclose a bent portion in the acquisition line (
PNG
media_image2.png
814
916
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), Zhao et al. does not appear to provide an opening in the support per se for the bent portion.
However, Kim et al. teaches (in the Abstract) that providing ‘bending holding units’ for bent portions of a Flexible Flat Cable (i.e. the ‘acquisition line’) is known in the art inorder to securely hold the FFC so that it can be prevented from sagging and facilitate processing. The only image associated with Kim et al. (
PNG
media_image3.png
1052
1306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) appears to show the ‘bending holding unit 120 securing the bent portion so that it can be easily assembled into the opening 210. While Zhao et al. does not explicitly illustrate a bent portion aligned with an opening in the support, the Examiner deems that the combined teachings would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a bending holding unit for securing the bent portion of the acquisition line (FFC 118 in Zhao et al.) so that it can easily be aligned with an opening in the support to facilitate assembly and connections to exterior monitoring devices/circuit boards.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Zhao et al. to include a bent portion and opening as claimed, as a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that securely held bent portions can be prevented from sagging, thereby allowing easier assembly with the openings and, as such, easier connections to exterior monitoring devices and/or circuit boards.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao et al. discloses the bend near the end of the acquisition line meeting the claimed limitations as illustrated and discussed above. However, the Examiner also notes that a skilled artisan would be well versed in placing the bend ‘as needed’ depending on the structural arrangement of the components within the battery module.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, these limitations are met for the reasons set forth above, noting that Zhao et al. disclose the explicit use in battery modules for vehicles (at least Paragraph 0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 3 (and its dependent claims, 4 – 9) requires a height difference in the line connection portion and cell connection portions of each of the busbars as recited in claim 3, which is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record. Claim 10 (and its dependent claims, 11 -18) requires a support that comprises a blister support having specific limitations, a plastic support having specific limitations, and a cell contact system comprising a circuit board fixed to the plastic support, as recited in claim 10. These limitations are neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
June 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights