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 .
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: For example; claim 5 recites the cut off is formed straight between the middle of an upper edge of one pair of the side walls and a middle of a side edge of the pair of the side walls, the side edge facing the slit; it is unclear which side is the cut off and if it faces outwardly with respect to the module? Are there two cut off portions? The figures as provided do not clearly illustrate these limitations. Claim 6 also is rejected due to the same reasons of claim 5; claim 6 recites the convex is outward between a middle of an upper edge…The Applicant should clarify what is meant by these structural limitations as they are not clear to the Examiner. It would be helpful if the claim language is amended to define where the cut off is and what is considered to be the middle portion of the upper edge. The Examiner has rejected the claims as best to her interpretation of the limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
US20190027733A1 (Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a wire routing structure and busbar module [abs]; a bus-bar module comprising: an electrical-wire routing body [#17 case; 0026] to be assembled with a battery module configured of a plurality of battery cells [0022-0023]; a plurality of bus-bars [#100; bus bar module] that are stored in the electrical-wire routing body and are to be electrically connected between electrodes of the battery cells, respectively; and a plurality of electrical-wires [#23; first wires; 0025] to be connected with the battery cells via the bus-bars [0025-0027], wherein the electrical-wire routing body includes a pair of electrical-wire routing passages [#19 wire routing grooves] that are divided by a slit and in which the electrical-wires are routed [#47; 0033-0034; wire routing portions], wherein each of the electrical-wire routing passages is provided with a pair of side walls, and wherein, in at least one of the pair of electrical-wire routing passages that are divided by the slit, a cut-off is formed at an upper-end corner of one of the pair of side walls, the upper-end corner facing to the slit [fig. 2-depicted below]. It is further noted; in Fig. 2; there is a gap (i.e. claimed slit) between each bus bar rooms #27 [i.e. the sides of the bus bar rooms are the side walls as claimed]; where on side of the wall has the recessed edge which corresponds to the cut out.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto teaches wherein the electrical-wire routing body includes a pair of bus-bar storages that store the bus-bars [#27; 0026-0028] and are divided by the slit, and a pair of electrical-wire routing grooves that store the electrical-wires and are divided by the slit, the pair of electrical-wire routing grooves serving as the pair of electrical-wire routing passages, and wherein two sets of the bus-bar storage and the electrical-wire routing groove are connected with each other with a hinge interposed the two sets [0030-#43 is the hinge cover; #45 hinge portion].
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto teaches wherein each of the electrical-wire routing grooves is provided with a bottom wall and the pair of side walls raising from both side edges of the bottom wall, respectively, and wherein the cut-off is formed at the upper-end corner located on an electrical-wire entering side of the electrical-wire routing groove [as depicted above in claim 1; the wiring portion #47 in which in the wires pass thru go thru an opening in which the bottom part is the bottom wall and a side wall on each side [fig. 9 depicted below].
PNG
media_image2.png
481
639
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto teaches wherein the one of the pair of side walls is the side wall located on an outer side [depicted above in claim 3 and in fig 2/9].
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190027733A1 (Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto teaches the cut-off is; however does not clearly teach the cut off is formed straight between a middle of an upper edge of the one of the pair of side walls and a middle of a side edge the one of the pair of side walls, the side edge facing to the slit [as noted in fig 1; Hashimoto teaches the cut off which is the recessed portion of the side wall]. With regards to the specific part where is the cut off is formed i.e. the middle of the upper edge; it is not clear thru the figures of Hashimoto if the cut off is formed straight between a middle of an upper edge of the one of the pair of side walls and a middle of a side edge the one of the pair of side walls; however it is the Examiners position, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as claimed. A skilled artisan could easily adjust where the cut off is formed as this appears to be a design choice and would not affect the way the module functions. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto teaches wherein the cut-off is formed curvedly to be convex outward [fig. 2], however does not clearly depict the cut-off is formed curvedly to be convex outward between a middle of an upper edge of the one of the pair of side walls and a middle of a side edge the one of the pair of side walls, the side edge facing to the slit. With regards to the specific part where is the cut off is formed curvedly to be convex outward between a middle of an upper edge of one the side walls; Hashimoto does not clearly depict this feature; however it is the Examiners position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as claimed. A skilled artisan could easily adjust where the cut off is formed curvedly to be convex outward between a middle of an upper edge of the one of the pair of side walls and a middle of a side edge the one of the pair of side walls, the side edge facing to the slit; as this appears to be a design choice and would not affect the way the module functions. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights