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
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/14/2026. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The non-elected species claims 9-13, include a species, which is “a bonding member formed of an electrically conducting material and disposed in a space inside the slit between the electrode lead and the busbar to electrically connect the electrode lead to the busbar”, which is not present in claims 1-8.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020122386 A1 (to Lee et al.) - translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a battery module (Figure 1, 10), comprising:
a battery cell (100) operable to produce electricity and including an electrode lead (110) that conducts the produced electricity;
a busbar (200/211) formed from an electrically conducting busbar material and structured to include a slit (202) that accommodates the electrode lead (110);
a first coating layer (230) disposed on the busbar (200/211) to cover at least a portion of the busbar (200/211) (page 6, lines 19-25) (as illustrated in Figure 2).
a bonding member/(a coating of Tin) formed of an electrically conducting material and disposed between the electrode lead (110) and the busbar (200/211) to electrically connect the electrode lead (110) to the busbar (200/211) (page 5, lines 28-30).
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the busbar (200/211) includes a surface that is not covered by the first coating layer (230) and is visually exposed to an outside of the busbar (200/211) (as illustrated in Figure 2).
With respect to claim 5, Lee teaches wherein a second coating layer/(nickel) disposed on the electrode lead (110) to cover at least a portion of the electrode lead (110) (page 5, lines 28-30).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020122386 A1 (to Lee et al.), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 20220076058 A (to Reu et al.) – translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claim 2, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the battery lead is welded to the busbar (pages 5 & 6); but fails to teach wherein the bonding member includes a central portion and an edge portion extending from the central portion, wherein the central portion is in contact with the electrode lead and the busbar, and wherein a thickness of the central portion is greater than a thickness of the edge portion. Reu et al. teaches a battery lead (Figure 8) (200) welded to the busbar (100); wherein a bonding member (300) includes a central portion and an edge portion extending from the central portion, wherein the central portion would make contact with the electrode lead and the busbar, and wherein a thickness of the central portion is greater than a thickness of the edge portion (as illustrated) in order to provide optimal bonding between the surfaces of the lead (200) and the busbar (100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the bonding member include a central portion and an edge portion extending from the central portion, wherein the central portion is in contact with the electrode lead and the busbar, and wherein a thickness of the central portion is greater than a thickness of the edge portion in the welding of Lee, as taught by Rue et al., in order to provide optimal bonding between the surfaces of the lead and the busbar.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020122386 A1 (to Lee et al.), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2022/0102813).
With respect to claim 3, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the busbar (Figure 1, 200) includes an internal surface forming the slit (202) but fails to teach wherein a side surface of the electrode lead (110) is spaced apart from the internal surface forming the slit (202) of the busbar (200). Cho teaches a battery module (Figure 6, 1000) comprising a busbar (Figure 8, 500) which includes an internal surface forming the slit (510) (as illustrated), wherein a side surface of the electrode lead (160) is spaced apart from the internal surface of the busbar (500) (as illustrated in Figures 8-10) in order to extend the life of the battery cell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to space apart a side surface of the electrode lead from the internal surface forming the slit of the busbar in the battery module of Lee, as taught by Cho, in order to extend the life of the battery cell.
With respect to claim 7, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach wherein a width of the slit (202) of the busbar (200) is within three times a width of the electrode lead. Cho teaches wherein the width of the slit (510) of the busbar (500) is within three times a width of the electrode lead (160a/160b) (as illustrated in Figures 8-10) in order to avoid unnecessary contact between the electrode lead and the busbar and thereby extend the life of battery components.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the width of the slit of the busbar within three times a width of the electrode lead in the battery module of Lee, as taught by Cho, in order to avoid unnecessary contact between the electrode lead and the busbar and thereby extend the life of battery components.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020122386 A1 (to Lee et al.) – translation attached and relied upon below, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 2023/0231279) in view of American Elements – “Melting Points Reference Sheet” - attached.
With respect to claim 6, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above but fails to teach the specific material the busbar can be made of. Park teaches a battery module comprising a busbar made of copper (para. [0063]) in order to provide a light-weight material for the construction of the battery module.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to use copper for the busbar in Lee, as taught by Park, in order to provide a light-weight material for the construction of the battery module.
Melting Points Reference Sheet is relied upon for providing the respective melting points of the metals recited below.
Therefore, Lee in view of Park in view of the “Melting Point Reference Sheet” teaches wherein a melting point of the bonding member (Tin – 231.93oC) and a melting point of the first coating layer ((230) – comprising lead (327.46 oC)) are lower than a melting point of the electrode lead/(aluminum – 660.3 oC) and a melting point of the busbar/(copper) (in view of Park) (1084.62 oC). Lee teaches wherein the first coating layer (230) (can comprise silver, aluminum, gold, and lead) (page 6, lines 19-25) and the bonding member can comprise a tin coating (page 5, lines 28-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to choose a lead coating as part of the first coating layer (230) in Lee in order to provide a cost-effective option for the coating material.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020122386 A1 (to Lee et al.) – translation attached and relied upon below, as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the first coating layer (230) (can comprise silver, aluminum, gold, and lead) (page 6, lines 19-25) and the bonding member can comprise a tin coating (page 5, lines 28-30) - it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to choose a lead coating as part of the first coating layer (230) in Lee in order to provide a cost effective option for the coating material. Therefore, Lee reads on the instant limitations of wherein the first coating layer and the bonding member include at least one of tin (Sn), lead (Pb), copper (Cu), or silver (Ag).
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 at 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/ 9/25/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights