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 statements (IDS) submitted on 16 October 2024 and 05 November 2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and have been considered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2017/0125753; “Kim”) in view of Lee (KR 2024/0100730; “Lee”; machine translation used) in further view of Umeyama et al. (US 2016/0365546; “Umeyama”). Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a battery pack (see e.g. “a rechargeable battery module 1000” in paragraph [0041], and in Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a plurality of battery cells (see e.g. “plurality of unit cells” in paragraph [0008], and 100 in Figures 1 and 2 of Kim) comprising one or more electrodes (see e.g. “first electrode terminal 21” and “second electrode terminal 22” in paragraph [0053], and 21 & 22 in Figure 2 of Kim);
PNG
media_image1.png
320
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 6. of Kim, Annotated by the Examiner.
one or more bus bars (see e.g. “the battery module includes … a bus bar 200” in paragraph [0042], and 200 in Figures 1 and 2 of Kim), comprising one or more connecting portions (see e.g. “a bus bar 200 that is electrically connected to unit cells 100” in paragraph [0042] wherein the connected portion corresponding to connection portions, and 200 & 21 in Figure 6 of Kim) connected to the one or more electrodes (see e.g. 200 & 21 in Figure 6 of Kim);
a pair of side plates (see e.g. “a pair of side plates 400” in paragraph [0047], and 400 in Figure 1 of Kim) at opposite sides of the plurality of battery cells (see e.g. “A pair of side plates 400 are provided, and are disposed at opposite ends” in paragraph [0047], and in Figure 2 of Kim); and a bus bar holder (see e.g. “a bus bar holder 600 covering the unit cells” in paragraph [0042], and 600 in Figure 6 of Kim) comprising:
an opening (see e.g. “the bus bar holder 600 is provided with a bus bar hole 610” in paragraph [0050], and 610 in Figure 2 of Kim) corresponding to each of the electrodes (see e.g. “a bus bar hole 610 for connecting the bus bar 200 and the unit cell 100” in paragraph [0050], and 610, 21, and 22 in Figure 2 of Kim); and
a support (the bus bar holder 600 of Kim directly acts as the support, see e.g. “the bus bar holder 600 that supports lower ends of the unit cells 100” in paragraph [102], and 600 in Figure 6 of Kim) comprising a support groove (see e.g. “a coupling groove 640 is formed along the x-axis direction [of the bus bar holder 600]” in paragraph [0088], and 640 in Figure 6 of Kim) into which the side plate is inserted (see e.g. “the coupling portion 440 is combined with the coupling groove 640” in paragraph [0089], and 440 and 640 in Figures 6 of Kim).
Kim does not disclose a receiving portion comprising a receiving groove extending from the support and communicating with the opening.
However, Lee discloses a receiving groove meant to capture excessive adhesive material from contaminating the battery cell (Figures 4 and 6 of Lee, showing before and after adhesion, respectively).
PNG
media_image2.png
409
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 4. of Lee, Annotated by the Examiner.
PNG
media_image3.png
449
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Lee, Annotated by the Examiner
Umeyama teaches that preventing foreign materials, specifically welding spatter, from entering/contaminating the internal components of the battery pack is important in preventing internal short circuits and damaging internal parts of the battery. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the support of the bus bar holder of Kim to include a receiving groove capable of catching any welding spatter (or other foreign material) that is generated as taught by Lee, so as to prevent said welding spatter from entering and contaminating the internal components of the battery as suggested by Umeyama. Thus, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses a receiving portion (see e.g. “The cell frame 100 includes a receiving portion 110 into which the bus bar 200 is inserted and disposed, and a groove 112 is formed in each receiving portion 110” in paragraph [0056], and 110 in Figures 4 and 6 of Lee) comprising a receiving groove (see e.g. “a portion of the adhesive material 300 may move to the groove 111 of the receiving portion 110 and be accommodated within the groove 111” in paragraph [0051], 111 in Figures 4 and 6 of Lee) extending from the support (see e.g. 600 in Figure 6 of Kim) and communicating with the opening (modification of the support, 600 in Figure 6 of Kim, with the receiving groove, 111 in Figure 4 of Lee, would house said opening by virtue of introducing the receiving groove).
PNG
media_image4.png
331
407
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Kim, Annotated by the Examiner to highlight the opening resulting from the modification of Kim
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support (the bus bar holder 600 of Kim directly acts as the support, see 600 in Figure 6 of Kim) and the receiving portion (see e.g. the receiving groove 110 depicted in Figure 4 of Lee) are between a bus bar from among the bus bars and a side plate from among the side plates and extend in a longitudinal direction of the side plate (the modified support, which houses the receiving portion as taught by Lee, would still exist between the bus bar and side plate as taught by Kim, see e.g. 600 in Figure 6 of Kim).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses a battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein a side plate (see e.g. 400 of Figure 2 of Kim) from among the side plates comprises a bent portion (see e.g. “The side plate 400 is provided with a coupling portion 440 “ in paragraph [0088, see above notated Fig 6 of Kim], and 440 in Figure 6) extending inwardly (see the bent portion 440 being inwards in Figure 6), and the bent portion is inserted into the support groove (see e.g. “a coupling portion 440 combined with the coupling groove 640” in paragraph [0088], and 640 in annotated Figure 6 of Kim above).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support (see e.g. 600 of Figure 6 of Kim) comprises: a first support end and a second support end formed to oppose each other with a side plate from among the side plates therebetween (see e.g. Figure 6 of Kim; the coupling portion 440 of the side plate inserting into the coupling groove 640, which forms both unnumbered support ends above and below the coupling groove 640 which are equivalent to the first support end and the second support end, respectively).
PNG
media_image5.png
312
465
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Kim, annotated by the Examiner, highlighting the equivalent first support end and second support end. By virtue of modifying this support to house the receiving groove, the first barrier would be formed so as to connect said support ends.
Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses a first barrier defining the support groove (formed via the introduction of the receiving portion to the support) by connecting the first support end to the second support end and between a bus bar from among the bus bars and a side plate from among the side plates (see Fig 4 of Lee, Figure 6 of Kim shows the support already sitting between the bus bar 200 and the side plate 400). See MPEP 2112 (IV) and (V).
PNG
media_image6.png
396
587
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Lee, annotated by the examiner, to show the equivalency of the first receiving end, second barrier, and the second receiving end in which they define the walls of the receiving groove.
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama does not disclose the battery pack as claimed in claim 4, wherein the first support end is above the bus bar (Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama teaches the first support end as being bisected by the bus bar, see e.g. the annotated Figure 6 of Kim below).
PNG
media_image7.png
278
448
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Kim, annotated by the Examiner so as to highlight the first support end being bisected by the bus bar and the second support end being under the bus bar
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to anchor the first support end to the bent portion of the side plate regardless of its relationship to the bus bar, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Thus, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the second support end is under the bus bar (see e.g. the annotated Figure 6 of Kim above). Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the first barrier extends the first support end and the second support end in a height direction (via introduction of the receiving groove, the first barrier is formed as it acts to connect the first support end and second support end so as to define the outer wall of the receiving groove, see Fig 4 Lee above).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 4, wherein the first barrier (The incorporation of the receiving groove (see e.g. 111 in Figure 4 of Lee) between the bus bar and end plate so as to form the receiving portion, would form the first barrier as it defines the outer wall of the receiving portion and acts to connect the first support end and second support end) is spaced apart from the bus bar (see e.g. 200 in Figure 6 of Kim) outwardly from the battery pack.
PNG
media_image6.png
396
587
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Lee, annotated by the examiner, to show the equivalency of the first receiving end, second barrier, and the second receiving end in which they define the walls of the receiving groove. Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the receiving portion (see e.g. 111 in Figure 4 of Lee) comprises: a second barrier extending down from the support (so as to define the initial boundary of the receiving groove, which is equivalent to the outermost wall of the receiving groove 111 of Lee), a first receiving end spaced apart from the second barrier to form the receiving groove therebetween (so as to define the opposing boundary of the receiving groove, which is equivalent to the innermost wall of the receiving groove 111 of Lee), and a second receiving end connecting the second barrier to the first receiving end (so as to define the bottom portion of the receiving groove which connects the first receiving end and the second barrier, which is equivalent to the bottom of the receiving groove 111 of Lee).
PNG
media_image8.png
396
565
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Lee, annotated by the examiner, to show the equivalency of the first receiving end, second barrier, and the second receiving end in which they define the walls of the receiving groove.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, wherein the second barrier (right wall of the receiving groove 111 of Lee, see e.g. Figure 4 of Lee) is between the battery cell and a side plate from among the side plates and extends in a longitudinal direction of the side plate (necessary to define the receiving groove 111 of Lee so as to function as a receiving groove, see Fig 4 of Lee).
The receiving groove (see e.g. 111 in Figure 4 of Lee), by necessity of its structure, would have to be defined by a second barrier between the battery cell and the side plate, so as to form the outer-most wall of the groove. Furthermore, the barrier needs to extend in a longitudinal direction of the side plate so as to form the aforementioned outer-most wall which prevents foreign material from entering the battery, as suggested by Umeyama.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, but does not disclose the second barrier being spaced apart from a shoulder portion of the electrode in a height direction. The support of Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama teaches the support being only partially spaced apart from the shoulder of the electrode, with the other portion communicating via an inducement groove (see e.g. 650 in Figure 6 of Kim) and a buffer member (see e.g. 651 in Figure 6 of Kim), so as to separate the support from the battery cell (see annotated Figure 6 of Kim below).
PNG
media_image9.png
296
366
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Kim, annotated by the examiner, so as to highlight the support being only partially spaced apart from the shoulder of the electrode
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, wherein the spacing distance between the second barrier and the connecting portion of a bus bar from among the bus bars (the distance between the bus bar and the outermost wall of the receiving groove) and a spacing distance between the second barrier and the first receiving end (the distance between the innermost and outermost walls of the receiving portion which defines the dimensionality of the receiving groove 111 in Figure 4 of Kim). Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama does not disclose the relationship between these spacing distances as defined by the claimed invention which states that a spacing distance between the second barrier and the connecting portion of a bus bar from among the bus bars is less than a spacing distance between the second barrier and the first receiving end.
In the instant application, the reason for the spacing distance between the second barrier and the connecting portion of a bus bar being less than the spacing distance between the second barrier and the first receiving end is due to the bus bar protruding beyond the electrode of the battery. So the spacing would be design choice based on the shape of the bus bar per the instant application. By comparison, in the case of Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama, the end of the bus bar remains flush with the end of the electrode. Therefore, although Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama does not read directly on the claimed invention, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama does discloses the structure elements and relative special relationship. Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, wherein the second barrier (see e.g. bottom of the receiving portion 111 of Lee) is under a bus bar from among the bus bars at a same level as the electrode (see e.g. Figure 6 of Kim). The receiving groove must be below the bus bar so as to catch any welding spatter/foreign materials from entering the battery itself, as suggested by Umeyama. The spatial relationship of the second barrier of the receiving groove to the electrode is inconsequential, so long as the bottom portion of the receiving groove is above the battery cell itself so as to contain said welding spatter/foreign materials. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, wherein the receiving groove (see e.g. 111 in Figure 4 of Lee) has a downwardly concave shape to communicate with the opening (the opening that is afforded via the introduction of the receiving groove, see e.g. 111 in Figure 4 of Lee).
By virtue of being a receiving groove, something intended to catch foreign material from entering the battery, it is necessary to the structure for the shape to be downwardly concave so as to receive and contain the foreign material, as shown in Figure 4 of Lee.
PNG
media_image10.png
376
673
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Lee, annotated by the examiner so as to highlight the downwardly concave nature of the receiving groove which affords the opening
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, wherein the first receiving end that is spaced apart from the electrode and extends perpendicularly to the second receiving end (forming the left corner of the receiving portion, see e.g. Figure 4 of Lee) contact a lower end of the connecting portion. However, as the connecting portion of the bus bar (see e.g. 200 and 21 in Figure 6 of Kim) sits flush with the top surface of the electrode, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama does not disclose contact with a lower end of the connecting portion. Because no connecting portion extends perpendicularly beyond the electrode, the first receiving end (as highlighted in Figure 4 of Lee above) cannot contact the lower end of the connecting portion of the bus bar.
PNG
media_image8.png
396
565
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
306
323
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Kim, annotated by the examiner so as to highlight the connecting portion of the bus bar being flush with the electrode. No connecting portion extends perpendicularly beyond the surface of the electrode, which doesn’t allow for the first
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the bus bar so that a portion of the connecting portion of the bus bar extended beyond the edge of the terminal so that the receiving end could be in contact with the lower end of it so as to form the receiving portion, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) per MPEP 2144.04 Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, wherein the first receiving end (see e.g. the innermost wall of the receiving groove 111 in Figure 4 of Lee) is spaced apart from the electrode and extends perpendicularly to the second receiving end (forming the left corner of the receiving portion, see e.g. Figure 4 of Lee). However, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama does not disclose this portion being spaced apart from a lower end of the connecting portion, and a spacing distance between the first receiving end and the connecting portion being less than a width of the receiving groove. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the spatial relationship between the first receiving end and the connecting portion so as to be smaller in width than the entire receiving groove, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04. Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, however it does not disclose wherein the first receiving end (see e.g. the innermost wall of the receiving groove 111 in Figure 4 of Lee) contacts the electrode (see e.g. 21 in Figure 6 of Kim) and extends in parallel to the second receiving end (see e.g. the bottom of the receiving groove 111 in Figure 4 of Lee; Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama teaches the first receiving end not being in contact with the electrode and not extending in parallel to the second receiving end, instead they meet perpendicularly and form the innermost corner of the receiving groove). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first receiving end so that it is in contact with the electrode, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 7, wherein the first receiving end (see e.g. the innermost wall of the receiving portion) extends perpendicularly to an end of the second receiving end (see e.g. the bottom of the receiving groove forming the innermost corner), however it does not disclose a surface thereof contacting the electrode (see e.g. 21 in Figure 6 of Kim), over an entire height direction (Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama teaches the innermost wall of the receiving groove not in contact with the electrode instead the support is flush with the bus bar over an entire height direction, and not in contact with the electrode, see Figure 6 of Kim). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the first support end so that it is in contact with the surface of the electrode over an entire height direction, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 17, both Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the connecting portion (see e.g. 200 in Figure 6 of Kim) covers a gap between the electrode (see e.g. 21 in Figure 6 of Kim) and the receiving portion (see e.g. 111 in Figure 4 of Kim), as the end of the bus bar is flush with the end of the electrode.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to alter the connecting portion of the bus bar so that it protrudes beyond the edge of the electrode, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative location between two components, thus it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, where in the connecting portion (200 in Figure 6 of Kim) is on a top surface of the electrode (21 in Figure 6 of Kim). However, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama does not disclose an end portion thereof protruding from a side surface of the electrode to cover at least a part of the receiving groove (see e.g. 111 in Figure 4 of Lee). The end portion of the bus bar is flush with the end of the terminal (see e.g. Figure 6 of Kim). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to alter the connecting portion of the bus bar so that it protrudes beyond the edge of the electrode thus covering a portion of the receiving groove, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.04. Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connecting portion (see e.g. 200 in Figure 6 of Kim) is on a top surface of the electrode (see e.g. 21 in Figure 6 of Kim) and an end portion thereof is on a same vertical line as a side surface of the electrode (see e.g. Figure 6 of Kim, the bus bar 200 is on the top surface of the electrode and the end portion of said bus bar sits on the same vertical line as the end surface of the electrode).
PNG
media_image12.png
239
370
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Kim, annotated by the Examiner, so as to highlight the bus bar 200 and the negative terminal 21 being flush on the same vertical line
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Lee and Umeyama discloses the battery pack as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support (see e.g. 600 in Figure 6 of Kim) and the receiving portion (see e.g. 110 in Figure 4 of Lee) are continuously over an entire longitudinal direction of a side plate from among the side plates (see e.g. “a coupling groove 640 is formed along the x-axis direction. The side plate 400 is provided with a coupling portion 440 combined with the coupling groove 640” in paragraph [0088], and 400 in Figures 1 and 2 of Kim).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested. Kim et al., US 20170125770 A1; teaches a battery pack wherein the bus bar holder includes a joining groove and the side plate includes a joining portion (a bent portion of side plate) that is joined to the joining groove (see e.g. paragraphs [0062] and [0063], 440 and 640 in Figure 5) so as to fasten the side plate to the bus bar holder. Cho et al., US 20150295214 A1; teaches a battery module including a plurality of battery cells, which includes a [bus bar] holder featuring a groove into which a bent portion of the frame is inserted so as to couple the frame to the holder (see e.g. paragraph [0040], 142a and 131 in Figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MALONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1730. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30a-5p, F: 7:30a-4p.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MALONEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights