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 .
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2113 relating to Product by Process limitations - “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the rejection is now based on a combination with Kuwabara et al. who shows and describes a similar bus bar arrangement which is used to connect multiple cells together, and the desirability to connect multiple cells, in a manner which obviates the claims as amended.
The double patenting rejection has been maintained below. Applicant is encouraged to file a terminal disclaimer to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (KR 10-2015-0089716 cited in IDS, a machine translation of which is of record) in view of Kuwabara et al. (JP 2011-249243 cited in IDS, a machine translation of which is attached)
In regard to claim 1, Yoo et al. teach a battery comprising: a battery cell (electrode assemblies 120) having electrode leads (uncoated portions 124) protruding in at least one direction; and at least one bus bar (current collecting plate 131, 231) disposed at one side of the plurality of battery cells (figure 1), each of the at least one bus bar including: a bus bar body (see annotated figure 7 below – current collecting plate 230) having a top planar surface parallel to the planar surface of the battery cell 120; a pair of first surfaces connected to opposite sides of the top planar surface, respectively, and extending away from the top planar surface, the pair of first surfaces (connection portion 231d) having a first slope Ѳ1 relative to the top planar surface, wherein the pair of first surfaces are inclined; and a pair of second surfaces (connection portions 231e and 231f) directly connected to the pair of first surfaces, respectively, and extending away from the pair of first surfaces, the pair of second surfaces having a second slope Ѳ3 relative to the top planar surface that is different from the first slope, wherein the second slope is not perpendicular to the top planar surface, and wherein the electrode leads are welded to at least one of the pair of second surfaces (see pages 3-6 of attached machine translation –angle Ѳ has been reproduced as “angle?” in the translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, the Yoo et al. describe selecting a geometry of the to prevent the laser from being applied inside the current collecting plate 230 (page 7) and shows many different possible embodiments, therefore depending on the conditions for welding (i.e. direction, power etc.), changes to size and shape of the prior art busbar are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV).
In regard to the amendment, the claims differ from Yoo et al. in requiring the electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells are stacked and welded to at least one of the pair of second surfaces.
However, Kuwabara et al. teach a similar battery comprising a plurality of battery cells 21 having electrode leads 22 protruding in one direction and at least one busbar 23 having a top planar surface parallel to a stacking direction of the cell 21 and second surfaces in recesses 23c, and the desirability to provide the busbar with multiple bus bar fingers 23 which are connected via a connecting bus bar top surface 23a so that multiple cells can be connected because such reduces cost and improves contact reliability (paragraph [0027-0031], many embodiments are shown and described, Figure 15 reproduced below) by providing slits 24 for allowing the electrode leads 22 of the plurality of battery cells are stacked and welded to at least one of the pair of second surfaces.
PNG
media_image2.png
532
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include multiple cells with electrode leads stacked and welded to a second surface of the bus bar in the battery of Yoo et al. as such allows for cost effective and reliable connections as taught by Kuwabara et al. and duplication of the prior art to arrive at desired current and voltage outputs are an obvious modification (see MPEP 2144.05 Part VI).
In regard to claim 2, Yoo et al. teach the entire top and side surfaces of each of the at least one bus bar are composed of five (5) sides (figure 7).
In regard to claim 3, Yoo et al. teach the pair of second surfaces are connected to a bottom surface of the bus bar body (figure 7, page 6).
In regard to claim 4, Yoo et al. teach the electrode leads 124 are welded to the at least one of the pair of second surfaces at an edge of the at least one of the pair of second surfaces (figure 1, page 3).
In regard to claim 5, Yoo et al. teach the electrode leads are welded to the at least one of the pair of second surfaces without being bent (figure 1, page 3 – no bending is disclosed).
In regard to claim 6, Yoo et al. teach the bus bar body 130 is configured to cover one side of the battery cells 120 (figure 1, page 3).
In regard to claim 7, Yoo et al. teach a width between the pair of second surfaces gradually increases from an upper side of the bus bar body to a lower side thereof (figure 7, page 6).
In regard to claim 8, Yoo et al. teach a width between the pair of first surfaces is less than a width between the pair of second surfaces (figure 7, page 6).
In regard to claim 9, Yoo et al. teach the top planar surface, the pair of first surfaces and the pair of second surfaces have different slopes from each other (figure 7, page 6 – an inclination formed from connection portion 231e).
In regard to claim 10, Yoo et al. teach additional embodiments where a contact portions between the surfaces are rounded, respectively (figure 9, page 7) in a manner which obviates included rounded transitions between the surfaces as required by this claim.
In regard to claim 11, Yoo et al. teach a contact portion between the pair of first surfaces and the pair of second surfaces are angled, respectively (figure 7, page 6 - an inclination formed from connection portion 231e).
In regard to claim 12, Yoo et al. teach an end edge of the electrode leads 124 welded to the at least one of the pair of second surfaces is located closer to the top planar surface than an end of the pair of second surfaces that is located at a contact portion between the pair of first surfaces and the pair of second surfaces (figure 1, page 3 – which surface is considered the top planar surface may be modified if necessary, the surface facing the leads is welded).
In regard to claim 13, Yoo et al. teach the top planar surface and a bottom surface of the bus bar body are parallel (figure 7, page 6).
In regard to claims 14-16, Yoo et al. teach the pair of first surfaces have a first length from the top planar surface to the pair of second surfaces, and the pair of the second surfaces have a second length from the pair of first surfaces to where the electrode leads are welded, and wherein the first length is different from the second length, the first length is shorter than the second length and he top planar surface has a length between the pair of first surfaces, and the length of the top planar surface is greater than the first length and the second length (figure 7, page 6). The prior art describes selecting a geometry of the to prevent the laser from being applied inside the current collecting plate 230 (page 7), therefore depending on the conditions for welding, changes to size and shape of the prior art busbar are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV).
In regard to claim 17, Yoo et al. teach the bus bar body, the pair of first surfaces, and the pair of second surfaces are symmetric with respect to a center of the bus bar body (figure 7, page 6).
In regard to claim 18, Yoo et al. teach a length of the electrode leads 124 is less than a length of the bus bar body (current collecting plates 130 and current collecting terminals 140) in a length direction of the bus bar body (figure 1 – page 3 – busbar includes all elements which conduct current from the cell).
In regard to claim 19, Yoo et al. teach the at least one bus bar further includes a third surface (such as connecting portion 231e, multiple surfaces shown above) that directly connects to the top planar surface, the pair of first surfaces and the pair of second surfaces, and wherein the third surface extends in a planar surface of the cell which as noted above would be the stacked direction of the plurality of battery cells (figure 7, page 6).
In regard to claim 20, Yoo et al. teach the at least one bus bar further includes a third surface (such as connecting portion 231e, multiple surfaces shown above) different from the pair of first surfaces and the pair of second surfaces, and wherein the third surface extends perpendicularly to the electrode leads (figure 7, page 6 – interior surfaces of busbar teeth shown in figure 2).
In regard to claim 21, Yoo et al. teach the pair of second surfaces are configured to prevent a laser beam from penetrating toward the plurality of battery cells (prevent from passing through the busbar) during a laser welding (figure 7, page 6).
In regard to claim 22 and 23, Yoo et al. teach an electric vehicle including a battery pack, comprising: at least one battery according to claim 1; and a pack case configured to package the at least one battery (figure 1, page 2 - Background Art).
In regard to claim 24, Kuwabara et al. teach the bus bar body 23 is separated from the plurality of battery cells 21 by a gap, and wherein the electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells extend in the gap from the plurality of battery cells to the bus bar body (see annotated figure 19 below for example).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
896
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 25, Kuwabara et al. teach among the pair of first surfaces and the pair of second surfaces, the electrode leads are welded to the pair of second surfaces and not to the pair of first surfaces (figure 15 above – many embodiments with various angled surfaces are shown as in figure 9-14, which surfaces the leads are welded to may vary depending on desired connections).
In regard to claim 26, Kuwabara et al. teach ends of the electrode leads are separated from the pair of first surfaces (figure 15 above, as noted above, many different arrangements and welding locations are described by the prior art, see figures 11-14).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,002,995. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims require a 1. A battery module, comprising: a plurality of battery cells having electrode leads protruding in at least one direction; and at least one bus bar disposed at one side of the plurality of battery cells and connected to the electrode leads of the plurality of battery cells, the at least one bus bar having a beam penetration prevention guider configured to prevent a laser beam from penetrating toward the plurality of battery cells during a laser welding, wherein the at least one bus bar includes: a bus bar body configured to cover one side of the plurality of battery cells and formed to have a predetermined thickness, guide chamfers provided at opposite sides of an upper portion of the bus bar body to guide the laser welding, and the beam penetration prevention guider provided in a pair, and the pair of beam penetration prevention guiders provided to the opposite sides of the bus bar body, respectively, wherein the pair of beam penetration prevention guiders extend to be inclined downward from the guide chamfers towards a lower portion of the bus bar body, respectively, wherein inclined surfaces of the guide chamfers directly connect to opposite ends of an uppermost surface of the bus bar body, respectively, wherein inclined surfaces of the pair of beam penetration prevention guiders directly connect to the inclined surfaces of the guide chamfers, respectively, wherein the inclined surfaces of the pair of beam penetration prevention guiders directly connect to opposite ends of a lowermost surface of the bus bar body, respectively, and wherein the electrode leads laser-welded to the at least one bus bar are in contact only with the pair of beam penetration prevention guiders constituting the opposite side surfaces of the bus bar body without being bent in a horizontal direction at an upper side of the at least one bus bar, and dependent claims require additional structure such as the inclined surfaces of the guide chamfers are angled relative to the inclined surfaces of the pair of beam penetration prevention guiders, respectively, and the inclined surfaces of the guide chamfers and the inclined surfaces of the pair of beam penetration prevention guiders are not parallel to the lowermost surface of the bus bar body in a manner which obviates the instantly claimed structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (US PG Pub 2019/0280279) teaches laser welding and a structure for preventing the laser beam from reaching the cells (paragraph [0097]) considered relevant to the claims.
Applicant’s own US Patents 10,481,208 and 10,629,881.
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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 on 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights