DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 08/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending. Claims 10 and 11 are new. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous prior art rejection(s) of claims 1-9 are maintained and reiterated below. See Response to Arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roemer et al. (US 2017/0133656).
Regarding claim 1, Roemer discloses a cell contacting system for an electrochemical device comprising:
a plurality of electrochemical cells 113;
cell connectors 116 (bus bar) form elements which connect the cell terminals 115;
a plurality of signal lines 145 (electric wire);
contact region 182 (a first base portion) located on one end side and bonded to the bus bar in a vertical direction by ultrasonic welding (para 0174);
terminal region 176 (a second base portion) located on the other side and connected to the electric wire; and
a resilient and/or flexibly deformable deformable-region 184 (a protrusion portion) located between the first base portion and the second base portion and protrudes in a vertical direction (Figs. 1, 6, and 21).
The protrusion portion would be capable of suppressing vibrations generated during an ultrasonic welding process to reduce propagation of said vibration from the first base portion to the second base portion. Figure 6 to Roemer (left) and Applicant’s Figure 5A (right) are provided below for comparison.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
430
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Roemer discloses the second base portion has a stripped end section 220 of the signal line 145 and crimping elements 222 (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Roemer discloses the protrusion portion protrudes to the side opposite the plurality of batteries (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Roemer discloses the electric wire is connected to the second base portion on the side to which the protrusion portion protrudes in the terminal (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Roemer discloses wherein in the protrusion portion, a first height of an apex of the protrusion portion with respect to a portion continuous with the first base portion is higher than a second height of the apex with respect to a portion continuous with the second base portion, in cross-sectional view in the vertical direction (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Roemer discloses the cross-sectional shape of the protrusion is a curved shape (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Roemer discloses the cross-section is rectangular shape (Fig. 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roemer et al. (US 2017/0133656).
Regarding claim 3, Roemer teaches the protrusion portion protrudes to the side opposite the plurality of batteries (Fig. 6).
Roemer does not teach the protrusion portion protrudes to the side of the plurality of batteries.
However, such a modification is viewed as a design choice since Roemer already teaches the protrusion. The direction does not chance the intended use of deformation region 184. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Alternatively, the deformation region 184 may comprise one or more undulations 190 (para 0182), which would result in some undulations pointing toward the cells and some undulations pointing away from the cells.
Regarding claim 6, Roemer teaches wherein the electric wire is connected to the second base portion on the side to which the protrusion portion protrudes in the terminal.
Roemer does not teach wherein the electric wire is connected to the second base portion on the side opposite to the side to which the protrusion portion protrudes in the terminal.
However, similar to claim 3 above, this limitation is viewed as a design choice one skilled in the art would recognize. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 7, Roemer teaches wherein in the protrusion portion, a first height of an apex of the protrusion portion with respect to a portion continuous with the first base portion is higher than a second height of the apex with respect to a portion continuous with the second base portion, in cross-sectional view in the vertical direction.
Roemer does not teach wherein in the protrusion portion, a first height of an apex of the protrusion portion with respect to a portion continuous with the first base portion is lower than a second height of the apex with respect to a portion continuous with the second base portion, in cross-sectional view in the vertical direction.
However, similar to claims 3 and 6 above, this limitation is viewed as a matter of choice if one wants the first base portion to be higher or lower than a second height of the apex in view of Roemer. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Roemer does not teach a refractive shape. However, since Roemer teaches different shapes, changes is shape is a choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Roemer fails to teach that the deformation region 184 (left figure) is "configured to suppress vibration generated during the ultrasonic welding to reduce propagation of said vibration from the first base portion to the second base portion," as required in claim 1 and illustrated in Applicant’s Fig. 5A (right figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
430
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response, Applicant correctly states Roemer does not expressly state the deformation region 184 is for suppressing vibration generated during the ultrasonic welding. However, the structure of Roemer would be capable of achieving the same. For example, just comparing the two figures above, the structure is near identical to Applicant’s Figure 5A if Roemer’s Figure 6 were flipped 180o. Moreover, the direction of interest is Applicant’s y-direction to suppress vibration from first base portion 141 to second base portion 142. As correctly stated by Applicant, the deformation region 184 is preferably flexural in the Z-direction (para 0072). This direction corresponds to height direction 200 (same as Applicant’s z-direction) and the signal-line-system-side positioning element exhibits “a high degree of rigidity in the X-direction and/or in the Y-direction” (para 0023). These directions correspond to the longitudinal direction 180 (Applicant’s y-direction) and to the transverse direction 196 (Applicant’s x-direction). Therefore, given the rigidity in the y-direction, vibration would be suppressed when generated during the ultrasonic welding contrary to Applicant’s assertion that a component that is deliberately rigid in the welding vibration direction (X/Y) and deliberately flexible only in the Z- direction is not configured to suppress vibration from ultrasonic welding. Finally, Applicant’s argument that Roemer expressly teaches that the deformation region 184 can be dispensed with entirely, nonpreferred and alternate embodiments do not teach away from the broader disclosure. See MPEP 2123. For these reasons, the prior art rejection(s) are maintained.
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 CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights