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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…equal to thickness” should be “…equal to a thickness”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 7 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination “the surface” is being interpreted as “a surface”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the edge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination “the edge” is being interpreted as “an edge”.
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) 1-7, 9-12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20220013868 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 04/29/2025) in view of Zhu et al. (US 20200350636 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20040063457 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a structure for a battery block comprising a circuit board, 20, a busbar, 10, and a connecting arm, 31, which can together be called a circuit board sampling structure (Takahashi fig. 5, 0040). An edge of the circuit board extends to form the connecting arm as seen in fig. 5 below. Takahashi further teaches mounting the busbar, which is soldered to an end of the connecting arm (Takahashi 0049), by using a hook structure, 66, along with a base portion, 63, (fig. 16, 0071) which fixes the busbar in place and can be called the connector. Takahashi further teaches that the attached connecting arm is clamped between the base portion and the busbar (Takahashi fig. 6, the connecting arm end, 35, is between the base portion, 63, and the busbar,10). Takahashi is silent to specifically the busbar having a plug hole of a snap-fit structure as well as a corresponding plug part prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zhu teaches a battery module that has a circuit board, 12, a busbar, 16, and a connecting member, 15, where the connecting member clamps the circuit board between the busbar and the connecting member in order to provide stability and reduce vibrations (Zhu fig. 9, 0071-0072). The connecting member of Zhu further comprises a plug part of a snap-fit structure which connects and clamps on to the busbar (Zhu 0072). While a corresponding plug hole is never explicitly described, it is the examiner’s opinion that a plug hole inherently exists in order for the snap-fit structure in Zhu to work as described, even if not, a plug part and complementary plug hole is known in the art as taught by Kim below.
Kim provides an example of a snap-fit structure where the plug part is a hook and the plug hole is a hole (Kim fig. 3, 0034) which makes it obvious to one of ordinary skill that the part complementary to the plug part can be a plug hole as a matter of using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). In this case it is a way of securing the plug part in place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery module of Takahashi and instead of securing the busbar and connecting arm in place via the busbar stopper, 66, secure the busbar in place via a plug part protruding from the base portion and inserting it through a plug hole in the busbar as taught in Zhu and Kim. This combination is an obvious matter of using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). In this case, both an arm reaching around and inserting a plug part into a plug hole are methods of securing or fixing the busbar in place in order to reduce vibrations.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takahashi fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
146
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhu fig. 9
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Takahashi teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the combination plug part and plug hole where the plug part can be described as a hook which reaches through the plug hole on the busbar and rests against the surface away from the connecting arm, forming a snap-fit member. As the hook must fully go through the busbar in order to rest on the opposite side, the distance between the hook and the connector is necessarily greater than a thickness of the busbar (Zhu fig. 10, 0071, groove 1531).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Takahashi teaches claim 1 as described above and teaches at least one plug part and plug hole which together form a snap-fit structure and simple duplication as well as rearrangement of parts is rendered obvious in the absence of unexpected results, See MPEP 2144.04.VI. As the only purpose of the snap-fit structure is to secure the busbar and connecting arm and reduce vibrations, simply adding more snap-fit structures in various patterns will not modify the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 7, modified Takahashi teaches claim 5 as described above and, as the plug parts go through the plug holes present in the connecting arm away from the circuit board, the connecting arm is in a zone defined by the plug holes and necessarily abuts against the plug part.
Regarding claim 9, modified Takahashi teaches claim 1 as described above and Takahashi further teaches that the connecting arm has a bent portion, 32 (Takahashi fig 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Takahashi teaches claim 9 as described above and Takahashi further teaches that the edge of the circuit board has a notch and the connecting arm extends from inside the notch to outside the notch (Takahashi fig. 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
511
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, modified Takahashi teaches claim 10 as described above and further teaches a first inner wall perpendicular to an extension direction of the edge and the connecting arm extends from the first inner wall and bends in a perpendicular direction (Takahashi fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified Takahashi teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches a battery block which comprises a plurality individual battery modules and the terminals of the battery cells are connected to the busbar (Takahashi 0002, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Takahashi teaches claim 12 as described above and the battery block can be called a battery pack as it has a plurality of battery modules.
Regarding claim 16, modified Takahashi teaches claim 14 as described above and further teaches that the battery block goes into an electric vehicle (Takahashi 0002).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20220013868 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 04/29/2025) in view of Zhu et al. (US 20200350636 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20040063457 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Specht et al. (US 20150212315 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Takahashi teaches claim 1 as described above and teaches that the busbar and connecting arm are soldered (Takahashi 0049), but is silent to the connecting arm and busbar being welded prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Specht teaches an electrical connection where the electrical coupling of the components can be done via conductive glue, soldering, welding, mechanical fastener such as a compression clamp or rivet, or through overlapping printing of the components to form electrically conductive bridges between printings (0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the busbar and connecting arm of modified Takahashi and simply weld them together instead of soldering as taught in Specht as a matter of using a known equivalent technique to form a physical and secure connection, See MPEP 2143. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20220013868 A1, provided in applicant’s IDS filed 04/29/2025) in view of Zhu et al. (US 20200350636 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20040063457 A1) as applied to claims 12 and 14 above respectively, and further in view of Günther et al. (US 20190036092 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Takahashi teaches claim 12 as described above and Takahashi further teaches that the battery block goes into an electric vehicle (Takahashi 0002), but is silent to a housing for the battery module prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art. In a similar field of endeavor, Günther teaches a battery housing for use in electric vehicles in order to protect the battery module or modules from outside conditions and the battery module goes into a tray which can be called a cavity (Günther 0002-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery modules of modified Takahashi and put it in a battery housing as described in Günther in order to protect the battery from outside conditions.
Regarding claim 15, modified Takahashi teaches claim 14 as described above and Takahashi further teaches that the battery block goes into an electric vehicle (Takahashi 0002), but is silent to a housing for the battery module prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art. In a similar field of endeavor, Günther teaches a battery housing for use in electric vehicles in order to protect the battery module or modules from outside conditions and the battery module goes into a tray which can be called a cavity (Günther 0002-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery modules of modified Takahashi and put it in a battery housing as described in Günther in order to protect the battery from outside conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights