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 .
Status of the Application
Applicant has submitted an amendment to the specification (filed 01/16/2026) to refer to the application as a continuation of the parent rather than a divisional. See also Remarks filed 01/16/2025 at Pg. 7 of 11. The Examiner respectfully notes that the amended specification has not been entered, since such an amendment presents inconsistent information with respect to the information provided in the Application Data Sheet (ADS). See MPEP 601.05(a)(III). The ADS should clearly designate the appropriate relationship to the prior-filed application. See MPEP 201.06(c)(I); 37 CFR 1.78(d)(2); § 1.76(b)(5). Accordingly, the instant application is still considered a divisional as indicated in the ADS (see Pg. 4). However, at the time of submission of the divisional application (filed 03/06/2024), the claims of the parent application were not subject to a requirement for election, since the restriction requirement was withdrawn as laid out in the Final Rejection (mailed 02/29/2024). This application is being considered a voluntary divisional see MPEP 804.01-A.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer (filed 01/16/2026) and Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 10 are acknowledged, and the previous Double Patenting rejections, Claim Objections, and 112 rejections of the Non-Final Office action (mailed 10/17/2025) are withdrawn. Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2 and 5-6 are in condition for allowance (see below). However, Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 created new 112 issues in the dependent claims (see 112(b) rejections, below).
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite the limitation of “conductive lines”. The instant specification indicates that the “at least two conductive lines” may form physical connections with a connection member, and only some (e.g. only one of the at least two conductive lines) may form an electrical connection with the connection member to transmit voltage information, while the other conductive line(s) may be dummy lines that physically reinforce the connection to the connection member, and do not form an electrical connection with the connection member [0053]. Therefore, it is interpreted that a “conductive line” can include a dummy line, and that a conductive line does not necessarily form an electrical connection with a battery cell or transmit battery cell information. As such, a “conductive line” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a line which is capable of forming an electrical connection somewhere along its length.
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 3, 4 and 8-10 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.
Claims 3, 4 and 8 each recite, “the connection positions”. However, Claim 1 has been amended such that this limitation no longer has antecedent basis. Therefore, it is unclear which “connection positions” are referenced. It could be interpreted that this limitation should read “the different connection positions” as recited in Claim 1, or it could be interpreted that this limitation is intended to refer to particular connection positions of “the different connection positions” recited in Claim 1. As such, Claims 3, 4 and 8 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution the first interpretation will be applied, as supported by the amendment to Claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “at one of the connection positions”. As noted above, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the connection positions”. Additionally, since Claim 1 has been amended to recite “one of the different connection positions”, it is unclear whether the “one of the connection positions” of Claim 9 is intended to reference the same connection position recited in Claim 1 or a different connection position. As such, Claim 9 and dependent Claim 10 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that Claim 9 references a distinct connection position, as supported by the instant specification (see Figs. 2 and 4; [0070-0071, 0078]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are allowed. Claims 3-4 and 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Ota et al. (US-20200020912-A1), Nomoto et al. (US-20140370343-A1) and Takase et al. (US-20180219204-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ota discloses a battery pack comprising:
battery cells (2, Fig. 2);
a circuit unit (Electric Control Unit 5, Fig. 2) connected to the battery cells; and
a flexible wiring (circuit body 30, Fig. 2) connecting the battery cells and the circuit unit to each other, wherein:
the flexible wiring includes (see annotation of Ota Fig. 2, below):
a first end portion to which a plurality of conductive lines are physically bound; and
a first group of conductive lines (wiring portion 32a, Fig. 2) and a second group of conductive lines (wiring portion 31a, Fig. 2) which extend from the first end portion, branch off from each other, and then extend in parallel to each other, and
the first group of conductive lines includes a folded portion at a branching position at which the first group of conductive lines is separated from the second group of conductive lines.
PNG
media_image1.png
901
1455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ota Fig. 2.
Ota further discloses (see annotation of Ota Fig. 3, below) that the first group of conductive lines are connected to “different battery cells” along a first direction at “different connection positions” (connection port positions 41; [0051, 0053]). Here, “different battery cells” is interpreted as any two or more of the battery cells of the battery pack, and “different connection positions” is interpreted as the positions at which the first group of conductive lines connect to the two or more battery cells.
PNG
media_image2.png
908
1269
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ota Fig. 3.
Ota discloses that one conductive line is connected to different ones of the battery cells along a first direction (see Ota Fig. 3; [0050-0051, 0053-0054]). After connecting the respective battery cell, the conductive line terminates (see Ota Fig. 3). Ota teaches that the conductive lines are used as voltage detection lines to transmit voltage values to the circuit unit [0053, 0058]. Ota does not teach the limitation “at least two conductive lines of the first group of conductive lines are connected together at each of the different connection positions”.
Nomoto teaches a battery system including a flexible printed circuit [0001]. Advantageously, Nomoto teaches that the wiring pattern for cell voltage measurement can be duplicated in order to improve reliability [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have duplicated the voltage detection lines of Ota with a reasonable expectation that duplicating the voltage detection lines (i.e. conductive liens) would result in a successful flexible wiring with improved reliability. Accordingly, modified Ota renders obvious that two conductive lines of the first group of conductive lines are connected together at each of the connection positions. This modification can be visualized in the annotation of modified Ota Fig. 3 (below).
PNG
media_image3.png
452
1283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of modified Ota Fig. 3.
Modified Ota renders obvious a first conductive line (Ota: L4, Fig. 3). Modified Ota does not teach the limitation “the first conductive line includes a first cut position at which the first conductive line is cut”.
Takase teaches a battery wiring module including a plurality of voltage sensing wires (26, Fig. 5; correspond to conductive lines). A voltage sensing wire including a portion where the voltage sensing wire is removed (corresponds to cut position) [0033]. A current limiting element (27, Fig. 3) is added at the cut position such that the voltage sensing wire is connected in series via the current limiting element [0033]. Advantageously, the addition of the current limiting element protects the voltage sensing wire from overcurrent [0015-0016].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added a cut position and a current limiting element in the first conductive line of modified Ota with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful flexible wiring wherein the first conductive line is protected from overcurrent.
Modified Ota further renders obvious that the first cut position of the first conductive line is behind “one of the different connection positions” in the first direction such that “the one of the different connection positions” is between the first cut position and the first end portion. Specifically, Takase renders obvious that the cut position is located near the attachment position to a respective battery cell (see annotation of Takase Fig. 3, below). Since any connection position reads on “the one of the different connection positions”, the claimed connection position can be selected such that first cut position of the first conductive line is behind one of the different connection positions in the first direction, thereby resulting in a structure wherein “the one of the different connection positions” is between the first cut position and the first end portion (see annotation of Takase Fig. 3 and modified Ota Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
500
1147
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Takase Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image5.png
515
884
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of modified Ota Fig. 3.
Although modified Ota renders obvious that two conductive lines are connected together at each of the connection positions, modified Ota does not teach the limitation “the at least two conductive lines connected together at each of the different connection positions include a first conductive line”. Specifically, this limitation is understood to require a common first conductive line to be connected at each of the different connection positions. Such a configuration is depicted in the illustration of instant Fig. 6, below.
PNG
media_image6.png
569
1256
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotation of instant Fig. 6.
Modified Ota renders obvious that each conductive line terminates at a respective connection position (see Ota Fig. 3), and therefore modified Ota does not render obvious a common conductive line (i.e. a first conductive line) that is connected at each connection position.
Therefore, the closest prior art, taken alone or together, does not disclose, teach, or suggest the limitation “the at least two conductive lines connected together at each of the different connection positions include a first conductive line” when taken in light of the rest of the claim limitations.
Furthermore, the prior art did not recognize that connecting a first conductive line at each of the connection positions physically reinforces the connection to the battery cells as indicated in the instant specification [0053-0056].
Claim 1 is therefore allowable over the prior art. Claims 2 and 5-6 are allowable as being dependent from Claim 1. Claims 3-4 and 8-10 would be allowable as being dependent from Claim 1 if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/11/2026