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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2023, 4/16/2025 and 6/6/2026 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 12/4/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 20210226304 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a battery pack (100) where a first battery (1; Figs. 1 and 2 and Fig. A below) where a first positive electrode terminal (2P, Fig. 4) and a first negative electrode terminal (2N, Fig. 4) are disposed at a first distance therebetween in a first direction (Figs. 1-3 and 4), and a second battery (1; Figs. 1 and 2 and Fig. A below) where a second positive electrode terminal (2P) and a second negative electrode terminal (2N) are disposed at a second distance therebetween in the first direction (Figs. 1-3 and 4) are arranged in a second direction that intersects with the first direction (Figs. 1-3), and the first positive electrode terminal (2P) and the second negative electrode terminal (2N) are arranged adjacently to each other in the first direction (Fig. 4), and a bus bar (20P+20N) connects the first positive electrode terminal (2P) and the second negative electrode terminal (2N; Fig. A below), wherein a first conductive member (20P; Fig. 6) of the bus bar (20P+20N) includes: a first joining portion (2220p, in particular the portion at the right hand side of the first conductive member) that is joined with the first positive electrode terminal (2P; Fig. 5); and a first extending portion (24P) that extends in the first direction from the first joining portion (22; Fig. 5), the second conductive member (20N; Fig. 7) of the bus bar (20P+20N) includes a second joining portion (2220N, in particular the portion at the left hand side of the first conductive member) that is joined with the second negative electrode terminal (2N; Fig. 5);
PNG
media_image1.png
722
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a second extending portion (24N) that extends in the first direction from the second joining portion (22; Fig. 5), the first conductive member (20P) and the second conductive member (20N) are made of materials differ from each other [paragraph 00351], the first conductive member (20P) and the second conductive member (20N) are connected to each other by a third joining portion (M), an end portion of the first extending portion (24P) and an end portion of the second extending portion (24N) exist in a spaced-apart manner in the first direction from a line that connects the first joining portion (22) and the second joining portion (22; Fig. 5), and the third joining portion (M) is formed on an overlapping portion of the first extending portion (24P) and the second extending portion (24N; Fig. 5; in Fig. 6, the lateral extension featuring the hole 24a is a portion of the first extending portion 24P, which overlaps the portion of the second extending portion 24N featuring the hole 24a (Fig. 7)) with a distance closer to the third joining portion (M) out of a distance between the first joining portion (22) and the third joining portion (M) and a distance between the second joining portion (22) and the third joining portion (M; as shown in Fig. 5, the distance between the third joining portion M and the second joining portion 2220N is less than the distance between the third joining portion M and the first joining portion 2220p).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches that the first battery and the second battery are each formed of rectangular parallelepiped body, the first positive electrode and the first negative electrode of the first battery are formed on the same surface of the rectangular parallelepiped body, and the second positive electrode and the second negative electrode of the second battery are formed on the same surface of the rectangular parallelepiped body [Fig. 1-3, 5].
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches that a plurality of sets each formed of the first battery and the second battery are arranged in the second direction [Fig. 1-3, 5].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20210226304 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Takahashi (JP 2010103053 A).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki remains silent of the feature as claimed; however, Takahashi teaches that it is possible to connect the member (5) to the positive terminal of the first battery and the member (6) to the negative terminal of the second battery [Fig. 2, 5; paragraph 0023]. In that case, the first conductive member is ref. 5 and the second conductive member is ref. 5. Therefore, the lateral extension featuring the hole (5h) is the third extending portion claimed in claim 2. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi teaches that the second extending portion further includes a fourth extending portion that extends in the second direction, and the third joining portion exists in an overlapping portion of the first extending portion and the fourth extending portion [Fig. 5, the lateral extension featuring the hole 5h].
12. Claim(s) 5-7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20210226304 A1) as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches that auxiliary tabs or protrusions for voltage detection are a common feature in the art. Departing from the embodiment shown in Figs. 8B and 8C, in which the bolt and nut is replaced by a clip m4 or by a rivet m5, the skilled person would have considered adding a protrusion for voltage detection to either the first conductive member 20N or to the second conductive member 20P, for instance in the first direction, without showing inventive skill.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches in Fig. 5 which shows that the surface on which the third joining portion M is formed is at an angle of 0o with respect to the respective surfaces of the first joining portion 2220N and the second joining portion 2220p, having therefore "an angle" with respect to said joining portions.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki teaches that interposing nickel or a nickel alloy between two members in electrical contact, for example by means of a nickel plating, is a common measure to improve the electrical conductivity of such a joint. It would therefore be obvious for the skilled person to apply a nickel plating between the first conductive member 20P and the second conductive member 20N for that purpose.
13. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20210226304 A1) and Takahashi (JP 2010103053 A) as applied in claim 2-3 and further in view of Okada et al (US 20170365827 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki remains silent of the feature as claimed. However, Okada teaches the inchworm-like bending structure 40 in the transversal portion joining the first connection portion 35 and the second connection portion 36 [Fig. 4]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki remains silent of the feature as claimed. However, Takahashi teaches that it is possible to connect the member (5) to the positive terminal of the first battery and the member (6) to the negative terminal of the second battery [Fig. 2, 5; paragraph 0023]. And Okada teaches the inchworm-like bending structure 40 in the transversal portion joining the first connection portion 35 and the second connection portion 36 [Fig. 4]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 4 and10 are 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.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4: the prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest or render obvious the battery pack with the combination of structural element as claimed, including the second extending portion further includes a fourth extending portion that extends in the second direction, and the third joining portion exists in an overlapping portion of the third extending portion and the fourth extending portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights