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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-14 are pending in the current application and under consideration on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: the names of the elements are next to the element symbols which is not uniform throughout the claims as the elements symbols are in parenthesis in claim 8. It is recommended that the element symbols be written in parenthesis throughout, for example: “Zirconium (Zr)”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in range of” should read “in a range of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said surface” should read “said conductor surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “arranged for” found twice in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-14 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 claims 1,2, and 11, the claims recite “a/the purposely passivated surface.” This limitation lacks definite scope, as the word “purposely” fails to further define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. It is not possible to evaluate the meaning of this limitation. Therefore, within the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, and as the components of a battery are purposefully created and selected, any passivated surface is considered to read on this limitation.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “arranged for” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not set forth how the busbar needs to be arranged in terms of connecting the busbar to the terminal and to the electrical conductor element. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation regarding the battery being “a battery of a stationary electricity source renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the term “stationary” is required to exhibit; the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought are not clearly set forth and cannot be readily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art or the public.
For examination on the merits, “stationary” is interpreted as requiring the electrical source be stationary at any point in time.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for being indefinite by including, while failing to remedy, the issues above due to dependency on the identified claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 12191527 B2, "Suzuki') in view of Kwon (KR 20160016363 A, "Kwon") and further in view of Kuang (CN 102965654 B, "Kuang").
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a battery module (Fig. 1, ref. #100) comprising plurality of battery cells (fig. 1, ref. #1) and a busbar (fig. 1, ref. #20P). The battery cell comprising a terminal (positive electrode terminal, fig. 3, ref. #2P) made of aluminum (col. 3, lines 52-53). The busbar (first bus bar) is made of aluminum (col. 3, line 54-56). The busbar is arranged for interconnecting terminals in a same electrical polarity of the plurality of battery cells in an electrically conductive way, since Suzuki discloses that the first bus bar 20P is connected to the positive electrode terminals 2P of the plurality of battery cells 1 via a welding joint portions W1 (col. 3, lines 54-57).
Suzuki fails to disclose the busbar further arranged for connecting the plurality of battery cells to an electrical conductor element made of copper or copper alloy.
Kwon discloses a battery module (Fig. 1, ref. #1 and 1’) comprising plurality of battery cells (fig. 1, ref. #10) and a busbar (fig. 1, ref. #50). The module further comprises a connecting structure (fig. 1, ref. # 40) that can easily electrically connect battery modules to each other (para. [0009]). The connecting structure comprises a connecting member (fig. 2, ref. #403) which is made of copper (para. [0011] and [0013]). The modules are electrically connected by the connection of the electrode terminal of the battery cell, the connecting member of the connecting structure and the module busbar (para. [0029]). By adding the connecting structure, it is possible to strongly connect the busbar to the battery module without affecting the structurally weak battery terminal (para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the connecting structure (with a copper element) of Kwon to the battery module of Suzuki so that the modules can easily electrically be connected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the connecting structure, in order to strongly connect the busbar to the battery module without affecting the structurally weak battery terminal.
Suzuki and Kwon fail to disclose wherein the busbar comprises a purposely passivated surface.
Kuang discloses the process of passivating the surface of an aluminum busbar by degreasing the aluminum surface to remove attached grease and impurities (e.g. passivated surface, para. [0005], [0033], and [0049]).
Kuang is analogous art because they are solving the similar problem of having a passivated film on an aluminum surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to passivate the surface of Suzuki’s aluminum busbar as taught by Kuang in order to prevent the aluminum materials from becoming oxidized and corroded.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Suzuki and Kwon fail to disclose the passivated surface of the busbar comprises a conversion coating and the conversion coating comprises zirconium Zr, fluorine F, and chromium Cr.
Kuang further discloses that after washing with water, the aluminum material is immersed in an aluminum passivating agent solution to form a passivation protective film (e.g. conversion coating, para. [0049]). Trivalent chromium ions and fluorozirconate are the main components of the passivating agent solutions (para. [0035]). Kuang further discloses that this aluminum passivator has extremely strong anti-corrosion properties, excellent adhesion, impact resistance to organic coatings, and significantly extended corrosion resistance time (para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to passivate and form a protective film on the surface of Suzuki’s aluminum busbar as taught by Kuang in order to improve corrosion protection of the busbar.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Suzuki further discloses that the first bus bar 20P is connected to the positive electrode terminals 2P of the plurality of battery cells 1 via a welding joint portions W1 (col. 3, lines 54-57) that can be formed by laser welding (col.11, lines 28-29).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang fails to disclose the busbar being attached to the electrical conductor element by a mechanical fastening device, such as a threaded fastening device or rivet and providing a pressing force between the contacting surfaces of the busbar and the electrical conductor element.
Kwon further discloses that the connecting member and busbar are mechanically fastened by bolt and nut to increase bonding strength while minimizing mechanical shock to the battery cell and to lower electrical resistance (para. [0015] and [0075]). Kwon further discloses that the battery module is fastened with strong torque by a fastening member such as a nut through a power transmission member such as a module bus bar (para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to connect the connecting structure (with a copper element) of Kwon to the busbar of Suzuki by a fastening member applying a pressing force to increase the binding force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mechanically fasten the connecting structure to the busbar in order to improve productivity and protect from the risk of fire or explosion.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki further teaches a battery module (Fig. 1, ref. #100, col. 3, ln. 48-49).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Suzuki further teaches that the battery module constitutes an on-vehicle energy storage device that Is mounted on a vehicle, such as an electric vehicle, a hybrid vehicle, or a plug-in hybrid vehicle (col. 3, ln. 41-44).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 12191527 B2, "Suzuki') in view of Kwon (KR 20160016363 A, "Kwon") and further in view of Kuang (CN 102965654 B, "Kuang") and even further in view of Krueger et al. (DE 102011082312 A1, "Krueger").
Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang discloses the battery module of claim 2 as discussed above including the passivated surface comprising a conversion coating.
Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang fails to disclose the conversion coating comprises zirconium Zr, titanium Ti, and chromium Cr.
Krueger discloses a coating on a metal surface comprising chromium (Cr), zirconium (Zr), and titanium (Ti) leading to good protection against bright corrosion and good adhesion (para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the passivated surface comprising the conversion coating Kuang to be modified to include chromium (Cr), zirconium (Zr), and titanium (Ti) as taught in Krueger to improve corrosion protection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 12191527 B2, "Suzuki') in view of Kwon (KR 20160016363 A, "Kwon") and further in view of Kuang (CN 102965654 B, "Kuang"),and even further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20140081161 A, “Kim”).
Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang discloses the battery module of claim 1 as discussed above. Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang fails to disclose the thickness of the passivated surface is in range of 0.5 - 1 pm.
Kim teaches a method for manufacturing stainless steel for polymer fuel cell separator plates [0005] comprising cold rolling a ferritic stainless steel, brightly annealing the cold-rolled plate, and pickling the passive film (para. [0015]) formed on the surface of the cold-rolled plate by bright annealing with a nitric acid solution (para. [0015]). After bright annealing is preformed, the surface of the passive film has a thickness of 10 nm (para. [0032]). After electrolytic pickling, the thickness of the passive film is reduced to 2 nm and the second oxide is removed (para. [0042]) leading to lower interfacial contact resistance (para. [0043]).
Kim is analogous art because they are solving the similar problem of passivating metal surfaces to improve corrosion resistance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the passivated surface of the busbar of Suzuki in view of Kwon and further in view of Kuang to have a thin surface to improve the conductivity.
In addition and/or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the thickness of the passivated surface which affects the conductivity for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.). It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 12191527 B2, "Suzuki') in view of Kwon (KR 20160016363 A, "Kwon") and further in view of Kuang (CN 102965654 B, "Kuang"), and even further in view of Mukai et al. (US 10525670 B2, "Mukai").
Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang discloses the battery module of claim 1 including the busbar having a passivated surface and being connected to an electrical conductor element, as set forth above.
Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang fails to disclose the electrical conductor element comprising a conductor surface having a Ni- Sn coating or OSP (Organic Solderability Preservative) coating or palladium (Pd) coating, and the busbar is attached to said surface.
Mukai teaches an alloy plate coated material (ref. # 100, col. 9, ln. 4) that can be used as an electrical contact material used in connectors (col. 9, ln. 4-7). The allow plated coated material comprises a base material including cooper (col. 3, ln. 26-28). The alloy plated coated material further comprises an alloy plate layer wherein the alloy plate layer is formed from a nickel-palladium-phosphorous (Ni-Pd-P) alloy (col. 6, ln. 14-18) leading to improved corrosion resistance and electrical conductivity (col. 6, ln. 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the electrical conductor element of Suzuki in view of Kwon and further in view of Kuang to have the alloy plate layer of Mukai comprising nickel-palladium-phosphorous to improve corrosion resistance and electrical conductivity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 12191527 B2, "Suzuki') in view of Kwon (KR 20160016363 A, "Kwon") and further in view of Kuang (CN 102965654 B, "Kuang"), and even further in view of Rieg et al. (US 20150180094 A1, "Rieg").
Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang discloses the battery module of claim 1 including the busbar having a passivated surface and being connected to an electrical conductor element.
Kuang discloses an aluminum passivating film-forming agent comprising trivalent chromium ions and fluorozirconate as discussed above regarding claim 3.
Suzuki in view of Kwon, and further in view of Kuang fails to disclose and the conductor surface of the electrical conductor element having an OSP coating, and said surfaces being attached to each other.
Rieg discloses battery (ref. #12, para. [0036]) wherein a casing, first end cap, and second end cap can be joined to form the battery. The first end cap can be arranged to be a positive terminal and the second end cap can be arranged to be a negative terminal (para. [0037]). A conductive material (para. [0038]) is positioned in contact with the positive terminal and negative terminal (para. [0038]). The conductive material is a copper foil that is protected by a more stable conductive material such as an organic solderability preservative coating (OSP) (para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the passivated surface of Kuang and for the connecting structure of Kwon to be modified to comprise the OSP coating of Rieg for stability and satisfactory electrical conductivity.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Moto (JP 2019157258 A) teaches a copper alloy plate comprising chromium, titanium, and zirconium for use as a material for busbars (para. [0014]).The copper alloy plate further comprises nickel (Ni) and tin (Sn) (para. [0018]).
Kang (KR 1975587 B1) teaches a conductor (ref. #10, para. [0020]) that may be a bus interconnection for reducing a voltage drop. The conductor is formed to have a multi-layer structure including aluminum or an aluminum alloy (para. [0024]). The side surfaces of the conductor are surrounded by a passivation layer pattern that may be formed of an organic material such as a fluorine-based polymer (para. [0022])and an inorganic material such as zirconium dioxide (para. [0023]). The conductor comprises multiple conductive layers wherein the second conductive layer may include chromium or a chromium alloy (para. [0026]).
Volk (US 20190145009 A1) teaches an aqueous treatment solution (para. [0018]) and process (para. [0064]) for producing a conversion coating on metallic surfaces wherein the solution can be used to passivate aluminum and aluminum alloy surfaces (para. [0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-0345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6:00 am - 4:45 pm EST.
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.
/SANDRA BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights