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 .
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oda et al. (JP-2015056273-A; hereinafter “Oda”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 1: Oda discloses a busbar comprising a busbar body comprising an electrically conductive material (flat busbar 101 made of Al) and a clad member coupled to a coupling portion of the busbar body (negative electrode terminal 8 comprising clad plate member 82, coupled to busbar 101 at joining region B). Oda discloses that clad plate member 82 comprise first metal (Al layer 80) and a second metal (Cu layer 81) joined to each other in the thickness direction. Oda further discloses that the lower surface of the Al busbar 101 is joined to joining region B formed on surface 8a of a layer 80 by laser welding, thereby coupling the clad member to the busbar body by welding.
With respect to the recitation that the coupling portion is “configured to be coupled to a counterpart”. Applicant’s Specification at paragraph [0049] defines the counterpart broadly as a member coupled to the busbar and states that the counterpart is not specifically limited. Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, Oda’s negative-electrode cylindrical portion 52 corresponds to the claimed counterpart. Oda discloses that the cylindrical portion 52 is made of Cu and is laser welded to joining region A formed on Cu layer 81 of clad plate member 82, while the opposite Al layer 80 of clad plate member 82is laser welded at joining region B to Al busbar 101. Thus, Oda discloses the busbar 101 coupled through clad member 82 to counterpart 52 in the claimed coupling arrangement.
Therefore, Oda discloses each and every limitation of Claim 1, arranged as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2: Oda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Oda further discloses that the busbar body comprises aluminum. Specifically, Oda discloses a flat busbar 101 made of Al and that the lower surface of Al busbar 101 is laser welded to joining region B formed on the surface of Al layer 80 of clad plate member 82.
Accordingly, Oda discloses the additional limitation of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3: Oda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Oda further discloses that one of the first metal and the second metal is made of the same material as the busbar body. Specifically, Oda discloses that the busbar 101 is made of aluminum, and that the clad pate member 82 includes an aluminum layer 80 and a copper layer 81. Accordingly, the aluminum layer 80 of the clad plate member 82 is made of the same material as the aluminum busbar 101.
Therefore, Oda discloses the additional limitation of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4: Oda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Oda further discloses that the first metal is made of the same material as the busbar body and is coupled to the busbar body. Specifically, Oda discloses that the first metal is an Al layer 80 of clad plate member 82, and that the busbar 101 is likewise made of Al. Oda further discloses that joining region B, formed on Al layer 80, is joined to the lower surface of Al busbar 101 by laser welding. Thus, the first metal (Al layer 80) is made of the same material as the busbar body (Al busbar 101) and is coupled thereto by welding.
Therefore, Oda discloses the additional limitation of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11: Oda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Specifically, Oda discloses an assembled battery 100 comprising a plurality of lithium-ion batteries 1 electrically connected to one another by a plurality of flat busbar 101 (Fig. 1).
Accordingly, Oda discloses the additional limitation of claim 11.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2015056273-A; hereinafter “Oda”) in view of Sakae et al. (US-20130012079-A1, hereinafter “Sakae”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 5: Oda discloses all the limitations of claim 4 as set forth above.
Oda does not disclose that the second metal has a higher electric potential than the first
Sakar teaches a battery busbar comprising a cathode connector 10 formed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy and an anode connector 11 formed of copper or a copper alloy, wherein the aluminum and copper portions are integrated by metallic bonding (claim 2, [0040], [0043]). Sakae further teaches that galvanic corrosion occurs when different metals are electrically connected and teaches the Al/Cu arrangement to suppress such galvanic corrosion and reduce electrical resistance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Al/Cu material relationship taught by Sakae in the clad member of Oda because Sakae teaches that an Al/Cu busbar arrangement suppresses galvanic corrosion and an increase in electrical resistance, thereby improving reliability of the electrical connection. See Sakae [0009] and [0011].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2015056273-A; hereinafter “Oda”) in view of Saito et al. (US-6431921-B2, hereinafter “Saito”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 6: Oda discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Oda does not disclose that a through hole formed through the clad member and the coupling portion of the busbar body so as to enable screw fastening.
Saito teaches a battery connection structure in which a busbar 87 and a terminal 86 are surface-connected and each includes a corresponding through hole 104 (Fig. 12-16). Saito further teaches that a male-threaded battery electrode 110 is inserted through the aligned through holes 104 of the busbar 87 and terminal 86, and the members are tightly connected by a nut 111 104 (Fig. 16; col.2, line 15-19).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the clad member and coupling portion of Oda with corresponding through holes as taught by Saito because Saito teaches that using a threaded electrode and a nut, provides a secure mechanical and electrical connection. See Saito col. 2, line. 26-32; col. 4, line. 11-16.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2015056273-A; hereinafter “Oda”) in view of Suzuki (US-9350088-B2, hereinafter “Suzuki”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 7: Oda discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Oda does not disclose that the coupling portion includes a recess configured to accommodate the clad member therein.
Suzuki teaches a bus bar comprising a metallic plate 12 having a first hole portion 14 and a conductive member 13 fitted into the first hole portion 14. Suzuki further teaches a groove portion 17 and 18 provided about the first hole 14, wherein the conductive member 13 includes a flange portion received in the groove portions when the conductive member is fitted and swaged to the metallic plate (Fig. 2 and 4; claim 1, col. 2 , line. 50-61). Suzuki additionally teaches that the metallic plate and conductive member may be made of dissimilar metallic materials, such as coper and aluminum (col. 5, line. 53-58).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coupling portion of Oda with a receiving recess/hole-and-groove configuration as taught by Suzuki for accommodating the clad member because Suzuki teaches that fitting and fixing a conductive metallic member within such receiving portion provides a stable and firm connection, reduces electrical resistance and improves conductivity between dissimilar metallic member. See Suzuki col. 3, line. 22-28.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2015056273-A; hereinafter “Oda”) in view of Wynn et al. (US-20210328309-A1, hereinafter “Wynn”) and Choi et al. (US-20180138484-A1; hereinafter “Choi”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 8: Oda discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Oda does not disclose that the busbar body comprises a wire weld portion including an integrating portion and a plurality of flat bars extending perpendicular to a primary surface of the integrating portion for electrically connecting a plurality of battery cells.
Wynn teaches a battery interconnect including at least one busbar and a plurality of stamped tabs extending from the busbar and configured to contact corresponding terminals of a plurality of battery cells [0021]. Wynn further teaches that the stamped tabs are continuous with the busbar and may be formed from a single piece of metal, and that the tabs are configured to be affixed to the corresponding battery cells by laser welding [0019], [0059].
Wynn does not disclose that the plurality of flat members extends perpendicular to a primary surface of the integrating portion.
Choi teaches an electrode busbar protruding from an L-shaped strip busbar, bent perpendicularly thereto, and extending in a plate shape [0012]. Choi further teaches that the electrode busbar may be integrated with the L-shaped strip busbar (claim 1, [0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the projecting stamped tabs of Wynn with the perpendicular plate-shaped configuration taught by Choi in the busbar arrangement of Oda because Choi teaches that integrating the electrode busbar with the strip busbar simplifies the assembly process. See Choi [0010].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2015056273-A; hereinafter “Oda”), Wynn et al. (US-20210328309-A1, hereinafter “Wynn”) and Choi et al. (US-20180138484-A1; hereinafter “Choi”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yanagida (US-20200106075-A1; hereinafter “Yanagida”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 9: Oda in view of Wynn and Choi discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as set forth above.
However, this combination does not disclose that the coupling portion is disposed on a middle region of the integrating portion.
Yanagida teaches a busbar 20 having a central region 23 and a pair of end regions 24A and 24B, wherein a portion of the central region 23 is exposed between the pair of folded end regions and the exposed portion serves as a connection portion 23A for establishing a connection to the electrode terminals 12 (claim 2, Fig. 4, [0012], [0049]). Thus, Yanagida teaches a connection portion disposed in the central/middle region of the busbar.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coupling portions of the busbar arrangement of Oda, Wynn and Choi in a middle region of the integrating portion, as taught by Yanagida, because Yanagida teaches that providing the connection portion in the exposer central region permits connections in a single layer region and thereby, improve the connection reliability. See Yanagida [0014].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2015056273-A; hereinafter “Oda”), Wynn et al. (US-20210328309-A1, hereinafter “Wynn”) and Choi et al. (US-20180138484-A1; hereinafter “Choi”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoon et al (US-20080199765-A1; hereinafter “Yoon”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 10: Oda in view of Wynn and Choi discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as set forth above.
However, this combination does not disclose that the coupling portion is disposed on a middle region of the integrating portion.
Yoon teaches a busbar 300 comprising a strip-shaped bar body and a vertical bent parts formed by bending opposite ends of the bar body upward such that the vertical bent parts are perpendicular to the bar body [0014]. Yoon further teaches coupling grooves formed in the vertical bent parts [0019]. Thus, Yoon teaches a coupling portion disposed on a bent surface formed at the end of the busbar body.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coupling portion of the busbar arrangement of Oda, Wynn and Choi on a bent end surface, as taught by Yoon because Yoon teaches that the coupling grooves formed on the bent portions engage the corresponding coupling protrusions to securely mount the busbar to a base plate providing stable mechanical coupling. See Yoon [0028].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights