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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "belt-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claims 2-3, they are rejected for containing the flaws of Claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seol (US-20210351449-A1).
Claim 1: Seol ‘449 teaches a battery pack [¶ 0034], a plurality of batteries [¶ 0005], cylindrical shaped batteries (10), outer circumferential surfaces facing each other (15), electrodes on both ends of the batteries in an axial direction (11, 12) [¶ 0036], a plurality of bus bars and that said bus bars are fixed to the electrodes “first and second electrodes on the first and second surfaces (11) and (12) may be electrically connected to each other through a tap plate arranged on the first and second holders (151 and 152)” [¶ 0039], a flexible printed wiring board (100), a plurality of conductors (110, 120) connected to the bus bars, that said flexible printed wiring board includes a belt-like main body (101), that said belt-like main body is routed along the outer circumferential surfaces of the batteries [FIG. 4], and that said flexible printed wiring board has branch portions (110, 120) projecting from the main body and connected to the bus bars.
It is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that an electrically connected tap plate [¶ 0039] is a bus bar. It is further understood that when the battery pack depicted in FIG. 1 is mechanically assembled, said bus bars on the first and second holders (151, 152) will directly connect to the conductors (11, 12) by physical means.
Claim 2: Seol ‘449 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches a flexible printed wiring board routed in a wavy and curved shape with both sides of the main body facing the outer circumferential surfaces of the batteries, stated in [¶ 0041] and visualized in [FIGs. 3 and 4].
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seol (US-20210351449-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukushima (US-20230261332-A1).
Claim 4: Seol ‘449 teaches Seol ‘449 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches that the branch portions (110) and (120) may be thermally bonded to the electrode surfaces of the battery cells (10) through welding or soldering [¶ 0046].
Seol ‘449 does not teach the conductors of the branch portions of the PCB being directly connected to the tap plates by welding or soldering.
Fukushima ‘332 teaches a wiring module (10) [¶ 0042], a flexible printed circuit board (FPC) (60) [¶ 0042], that the FPC comprises a land (43L) that is connected to the bus bar (30) through soldering [¶ 0074], and that by making such a connection the work efficiency between the land (43L) and the bus bar (30) is improved.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date of the present application to modify the soldering of Seol ‘449 to include the tap plates/bus bar as done in Fukushima ‘332 in order to improve work efficiency, as suggested by Fukushima.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 as well as the resolution of the 112b issue on “belt-like”.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While there are means of holding aspects of a battery case, PCB, and/or temperature readers to the side of battery cells, there are no uses of a columnar holding member with a slit-shaped recess into which the main body of the PCB is inserted in the Art prior to the present filing date. The closest Art filed prior to the filing date of the present application that could modify Seol (US-20210351449-A1) is Hadler (US-12614772-B2). However, even if Seol were modified to include the pin element of Hadler, said pin element would fail to include a slit-shaped recess to insert the main body of the PCB into.
A person of ordinary skill in the Art could have further modified the pin element of Hadler prior to the filing date to have an attachment scheme of the columnar member of Holdsworth (US-20220021038-A1), which states the attachment method may be a fastener.
Examiner finds it unreasonable to believe a person of ordinary skill in the Art would have created a fastener as a column with a slitted recess to hold the main body of a PCB in order to modify Holdsworth to modify Hadler to further modify Seol prior to the filing date of the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/03/2026 with respect to the use of the term “belt-like” has been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that the term “belt-like” is not an open-ended list of alternatives. However, there are many types of belts the main body of the PCB could be “like”, meaning the provided term “belt-like” remains an open-ended list of alternatives, even if a list such as “belts, straps, or the like” is provided. Furthermore, Applicant cites the Specification detailing the main body having a rectangular shape in plan view. However, this is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, as there are belts that may not have complete rectangular shaping, while still being contained within the term “belt-like”. The 112(b) rejections of Claims 1-3 are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 regarding the 102 rejections of Claims 1-2 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Seol does not disclose a direct connection between the tap plates and the branch portions of the PCB is not persuasive. Applicant cites that Seol discloses a soldered or welded connection between said branch portions and the electrodes. However, the welded or soldered connection of the branch portions to the electrodes does not prevent the direct connection of the branch portions to the tap plates. When the battery pack of Seol is assembled, the tap plates would form a direct connection to the branch portions of the PCB by physical contact.
Applicant’s argument that Claim 2 is patentable because of its dependance on Claim 1 is not persuasive because Examiner reaffirms that Claim 1 is unpatentable over Seol.
Applicant’s argument that Seol does not teach a wavy and curved body of the PCB with batteries on both sides of the main body of the PCB is not persuasive because of paragraph 0041 and FIGs. 3 & 4 of Seol clearly demonstrate the PCB having a wavy and curved shape with batteries on both sides of the main body of the PCB, as indicated in the prior Office Action. An annotation of Seol FIG 3 is provided for clarity of the record.
PNG
media_image1.png
805
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's argument filed 08/03/2026 regarding the 103 rejection of Claim 3 has been fully considered. The argument that Claim 3 is patentable because of its dependance on Claims 1 and 2 is not persuasive because Examiner reaffirms that Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Seol. However, Applicant’s argument that there is no apparent reason to modify the pin element of Hadler to include a slit-shaped recess for holding the main body of a flexible PCB is found persuasive. Examiner states there does not appear to be a reason to insert the main body of the PCB into the perpendicularly positioned slit-shaped recesses of the pin element. For that reason, the 103 rejection of Claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video using USPTO supplied web collaboration tools. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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 USPTO Customer Service, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER L GAGNON/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights